Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1934 (MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACTS, 1897 AND 1911 (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I have received your Address praying that I will make two Orders in Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, drafts of which were presented to your House on the 13th day of February and 6th day of March last, respectively.
I will comply with your advice.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newport Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LENA GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED (ARBITRAL AWARD).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House as to the result of the recent negotiations at Moscow undertaken at the request of the British Government between a representative of Lena Goldfields, Limited, and the Russian Soviet Government, with a view to arriving at a settlement with regard to the arbitral award of £13,000,000 in favour of the company?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Up to the present time the proposals made from the Soviet side have been unacceptable. While the company were prepared to make a large reduction in their demands, the
Soviet negotiators were prepared only to make a small advance on their former offers. The position is now under consideration.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the managing director of the company spent some eight weeks in Moscow and, when he arrived there, although he went at the suggestion of the British Government, he was told that he must make representations as the Soviet Government had no representations to make? Are the Government going to allow this matter to drift on indefinitely without any proposals for a settlement from the Soviet Government?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The attitude of the Soviet Committee has not been helpful, but the matter is under consideration.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that not only have the Soviet Government appropriated the large capital belonging to the company, but they are now making an income of some £500,000 a year out of the company's mines?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FOREIGN OFFICE (OXFORD SOCIETY).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what conditions a private organisation, namely, the Oxford Society, is allowed to have its annual general meeting in the Foreign Office; what rent is charged for the use of the room concerned; and whether similar facilities are in future to be extended on similar terms to other private organisations which might wish to meet at the Foreign Office?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): After consultation with my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, who is responsible for the Foreign Office building, I have invited the society to meet in a room at the Foreign Office this year. Last year the meeting was held at the Ministry of Health. No rent will be charged, but there will be some small expense incurred in preparing the room for the meeting, such as the hire of chairs and the removal of furniture. I had already arranged with the Office of Works
to bear this expense myself, but as my hon. and gallant Friend is also a devoted son of Oxford, I shall be happy if he will go shares with me.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the third part of the question, because, after all, there are other co-operatives and trade unions which would like similar facilities?

Sir J. SIMON: I was awaiting the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer to my suggestion. The Oxford Society has no political objects, and the arrangement is made simply for the convenience of a large number of members whose work lies in the region of Whitehall. I do not think the same considerations apply to other societies with political objects.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that not more than twopence a chair is charged?

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. SALT: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage of male civil servants, over 34 years of age, who are ex-Service men?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I assume that my hon. Friend's question relates to Ministry of Labour staff only. I regret that the exact information asked for cannot be given without a disproportionate amount of work. The percentage of male Ministry of Labour staff of all ages who are ex-Service is about 91. The corresponding percentage of male staff over 34 years of age is obviously greater.

SWEEPSTAKES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the sweepstake at present being operated by the Office of Works Social and Athletic Club conforms with the law; and what steps are being taken to ensure that this and other sweepstakes operated by employés in Government Departments are entirely in order?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have no authority to express any opinion on the question whether any particular scheme complies with the law. I understand that the provisions of the
law on the subject of lotteries and the scope of administrative practice there under have been brought to the notice of the promoters of the scheme referred to and that they have decided to abandon it. In reply to the second part of the question, I do not think that any action is called for on my part.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ANGLO-SPANISH COMMERCIAL TREATY.

Dr. LEECH: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the number of the Embassy staff at Madrid in 1913 and 1934; and whether the special commercial department of the Embassy has succeeded in arranging that Spain should purchase the agreed 750,000 tons minimum of coal in accordance with the treaty of 1922?

Sir J. SIMON: In 1913 the regular staff of His Majesty's Embassy at Madrid numbered six persons and in 1934 nine persons, including the Commercial Secretary. With regard to the second part of the question, I would point out that the only clause relating to coal in the Anglo-Spanish Commercial Treaty of October, 1922, as amended by the Convention of April, 1927, is that which provides that pit coal (that is to say bituminous coal) imported into Spain from Great Britain will benefit by a reduction of 40 per cent. on the duties imposed by the Spanish tariff on imported pit coal, and that this reduction will be applicable to an annual quota of 750,000 tons.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is no discrimination against this country?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member will observe that the terms of the Anglo-Spanish Commercial Treaty really provide for preferential trade.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a minimum of 750,000 tons of coal was agreed upon, and that minimum has never yet been reached?

Sir J. SIMON: No, I am not aware of that fact. I am aware that the provisions to which I have just called attention were provisions that were applicable to a quota of 750,000 tons.

CENTRAL (COAL MINES) SCHEME (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1934.

Mr. TINKER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if it is his intention to give an opportunity for discussion on the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order, 1934, a draft of which was presented to the House on 29th May; and, if so, can he give the date?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Coal Mines Act of 1930, the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order, 1934, has to be approved by this House. I am not at the moment in a position to name a date for this discussion, but it will be announced in the usual way.

Mr. TINKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take it late at night when there is no time for Debate?

The PRIME MINISTER: That can be arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. T. SMITH: May I ask whether there is any chance of amending this Order?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, there is no chance of amending the Order, only discussing it.

Mr. SMITH: That is the difference between an Order and a Bill. If we had a Bill, we should have a chance of amending it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA (JAPANESE TROOPS).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any undertaking has yet been given by Japan that the Japanese troops shall be withdrawn from the railway zones in Manchuria; and what effect has been given to such undertaking?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I am not aware that there is any change in this respect from the position as described in Chapter 3, Section IV of the Lytton Report.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that on two separate occasions the Japanese Government gave an undertaking that troops should be withdrawn?

Sir J. SIMON: I have had the matter looked into carefully, and I am assured that the position remains as described in the part of the Lytton Report to which
I have referred the hon. Member. If there is any further information, I will gladly try to ascertain it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are not the people in these areas thankful that the Japanese troops are there to keep down the bandits?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS (CONFERENCE).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached as to where the next Naval Conference is to be held?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

Captain MACDONALD: When will the conference take place?

Sir J. SIMON: That will be announced later.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).

Mr. COCKS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that President Roosevelt has issued a proclamation making unlawful the sale anywhere in the United States of arms and munitions to Bolivia and Paraguay; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to take similar action as far as this country is concerned?

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action is now proposed with regard to the continued granting of licences for the export of arms and munitions to the disputants in the Gran Chaco dispute?

Sir J. SIMON: The President of the United States issued on the 28th May a proclamation making unlawful the sale within the United States of arms and munitions to Bolivia and Paraguay. His Majesty's Government are pressing at Geneva that the embargo which they have suggested should be imposed at once unconditionally by all countries which have undertaken to co-operate. In the meantime, licences here are being held up.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade the American Government to discourage the sale of arms to their bandits?

Mr. PIKE: Does the United States proclamation prohibit the sale to a third party outside America who re-sells to Bolivia and Paraguay?

Sir J. SIMON: As far as I know, it does not, but that is a difficulty which must, I think, arise in any embargo which is not world-wide.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. COCKS: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the present position of the Disarmament Conference?

Mr. V. ADAMS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the disarmament situation in Europe?

Sir J. SIMON: At the meeting of the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference on 1st June the President, Mr. Henderson, after reviewing the existing situation, proposed the adjournment of the General Commission until 5th June, the Bureau of the Conference being called for to-day. In view of the number of proposals put forward at the meeting of 1st June the President later announced the postponement of the next meeting of the General Commission until Wednesday. In these circumstances I do not propose to make any statement to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PRISONERS (TREATMENT).

Mr. DOBBIE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Austria and Germany are represented on the International Prison Commission which has drafted rules for the treatment of prisoners; and whether steps will be taken, through the commission or the League of Nations, to ensure the observance of the rules in these countries?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) on 30th May.

ASSYRIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is
now in a positon to make any further statement with regard to the possibility of settling the Assyrian refugees from Iraq in Brazil; and to what extent the British Government is prepared to contribute financially through the League of Nations towards the cost of the proposed transfer?

Sir J. SIMON: With regard to the first part of the question, I regret that I cannot yet add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on the 30th May. The matter is still under the consideration of the Assyrian Committee of the Council of the League of Nations. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the 16th May, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH JOURNALIST'S EXPULSION).

Mr. COCKS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the arrest, on 31st May, of Mr. Pembroke Stephens, the Berlin correspondent of the "Daily Express," by the German authorities; and whether he can give the reasons for this action?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that Mr. Pembroke Stephens was arrested in Berlin on 31st May, taken the same evening by train to Cologne and expelled from Germany over the Belgian frontier on the morning of 1st June. The German authorities state that the decision to expel him was taken because his further presence in Germany was, in their view, calculated to disturb Germany's peaceful relations with foreign Powers.

Mr. COCKS: Seeing that this is the third British Press representative who has been expelled from Germany without any apology whatsoever, will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the German Government to the bad impression caused in this country by these proceedings and ask for a further explanation and an apology?

Sir J. SIMON: It is the unquestioned right of any State to expel a foreign
journalist, just as it is the right of public opinion in different countries to form their own judgment and conclusions on the subject.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, after the article by this gentleman in the "Sunday Express," they will invite him back again?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the journalist was not to blame?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WOOLLEN TRADE (EXHIBITION, KABUL).

Mr. HEPWORTH: 16.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that woollen cloth of all kinds and quantities is expected to provide one of the chief exhibits at the exhibition in Kabul in August under the auspices of the Royal Afghan Government, he can state what assistance he is giving to the woollen trade to enable it to be properly represented?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have no information confirming the statement-made in the first part of the hon. Member's question. The usual publicity has, however, been given to the exhibition in the Board of Trade Journal and particulars have been supplied to the Association of Chambers of Commerce. No firm has yet applied to the Department of Overseas Trade for information.

GERMANY (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. HEPWORTH: 17.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the prejudicial effect on the Bradford wool market of the absence of any definite information as to the extent of the German embargo on imports, he is now in a position to supply the information needed?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: From a report which has just reached me, I understand that the embargo on German purchases of foreign raw wool and semi-woollen manufactures, particulars of which have been published in the Board of Trade Journal from time to time, has now been definitely prolonged until the
30th June. The foreign Exchange Control Authority has inormed the British Embassy in Berlin that the duration of the embargo depends upon the currency position and that it is impossible to say at present how long it may have to be maintained.

ARMS (EXPORT LICENCES).

Mr. BERNAYS: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government has any guarantee that arms exported to Holland and Denmark are not re-exported to Germany?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Licences for the export of arms are only issued on condition that the owner or shipper, if so required by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, shall produce to them proof to their satisfaction that the goods were delivered to the destination to which the goods were consigned.

PORT OF LIVERPOOL (FOREIGN TRADE).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 38 and 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give information as to the relative positions of foodstuffs, raw materials, and manufactured goods in the trade of the port of Liverpool in the years 1931, 1932 and 1933;
(2) if he will give the latest information as to the increase or decrease of imports of raw materials and decrease or increase of imports of manufactured goods through the port of Liverpool, expressed in percentages, compared with the years 1930 and 1931?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Detailed statistics of the foreign trade at the port of Liverpool are published in Volume IV of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom. Particulars in respect of 1933 are not yet available, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summarised statement for the years 1930, 1931 and 1932.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can the hon. and gallant Member say if the figures indicate that the tariff policy of this country has not injured the trade of Liverpool?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I believe that is so.

Following is the statement:
STATEMENT showing the value of Merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom at the Port of Liverpool (including Birkenhead and Garston) during each of the years 1930 to 1932.

(A) Imports.


——
1930
1931.
1932.
Increase (+) or decrease (-).


1932 as compared with 1930.
1932 as compared with 1931.


Class I.
£'000
£'000
£'000
Per cent.
Per cent.


Food and Drink
74,225
64,984
62,651
(-)15.0
(-) 3.6


Tobacco
5,259
2,937
2,683
(-)49.0
(-) 8.7


Class II.


Raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured.
67,540
43,368
44,755
(-)33.7
(+) 3.2


Class III.


Articles wholly or mainly manufactured.
21,375
16,784
11,634
(-)45.6
(-)30.7


All other articles (a)
4,257
3,627
3,367
(-)20.9
(-) 7.2


Total
172,656
131,700
125,090
(-)27.6
(-) 5.0

SPAIN.

Mr. REMER: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether shortage of staff or pressure of other business has prevented his Department from carrying
to a conclusion discussions with the Spanish Government for the benefit of British export trade in accordance with the recommendations of the British Chamber of Commerce for Spain?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The recommendations of the British Chamber of Commerce in Spain are being carefully considered in conjunction with other matters which affect the question of initiating commercial negotiations with the Spanish Government.

Mr. PIKE: Is the adverse balance of trade in favour of Spain as against this country, amounting to £7,500,000 per annum, to continue while the negotiations are being carried through?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The negotionations if entered upon will be for the purpose of improving the trade balance.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LEASES, REGENT STREET (GROUND RENTS).

Mr. REMER: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increase in the letting values of premises built on Crown lands in Regent Street, London, between 1820 and 1919, after the old Crown ground rents were fixed, he will say if the Crown representatives received between 1820 and 1919 any increased sums upon the Regent Street ground rents fixed under the old Crown leases, or whether the benefit arising from increased letting values of those premises was retained by the lessees and their heirs without surrender to the Crown of part of the benefit?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): During the currency of the original leases of the premises built on Crown lands in Regent Street, only the ground rents fixed at the grant of the leases were received by the Crown, and the whole benefit of the increased letting value of the premises accrued to the original lessees, their successors, or other parties interested in the leases.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MEAT IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. HASLAM: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any statement to make in regard to fresh arrangements for the regulation of meat imports for the period commencing the 1st July, or any announcement of policy for helping the stock-raisers of this country in view of the low prices of fat cattle?

Mr. ELLIOT: As indicated in the reply I gave on 17th May to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), the meat situation is under consideration in the light of the report of the Reorganisation Commission for Fat Stock. I regret, however, I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. HASLAM: May I ask my right hon. Friend if, in view of the very great anxiety of stock-raisers at the long continued low prices of beef, he will be in a position to make a statement in the near future?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot give any indication of a statement at an early date.

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Major CARVER: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the supplies of potatoes available from home sources would make it possible to prohibit entirely the importation of Spanish potatoes after the first week in June, and of all other potatoes after the first week in July; and, if so, what steps he is taking to ensure that such prohibition shall be brought into force on those dates?

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the anxiety felt by the potato industry regarding the import situation, he is in a position to make any further announcement as to the regulation of supplies of foreign new potatoes to the United Kingdom market this year?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad to say that an assurance has been received from the Spanish Government that supplies of new potatoes from Spain, including the Canary Islands, during the present season will be limited, in accordance with our proposal, to a quantity not exceeding that sent in 1933. This covers 84 per cent. of total imports from foreign sources. Negotiations are continuing with the Governments of the other two foreign countries whose exports to the United Kingdom have been of significant volume in the past. The limitation of import seasons is not covered by these official proposals, but the Potato Marketing Board have informed me that they have themselves been negotiating an
arrangement with shippers in the Channel Islands and in certain foreign countries, and I understand that these negotiations have achieved some success.

Sir ROBERT SMITH: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department has granted permission for the cultivation in any parts of England of non-immune varieties of early potatoes; and, if so, whether he has consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure the House would wish me to congratulate my hon. Friend. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, while close touch is maintained between the Ministry and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on questions connected with the general administration of the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, consultation on details of internal administration is not customary. If my hon. Friend will communicate with me on any particular point he has in mind, I shall be happy to furnish him with any further information he may desire.

MILK CONTRACTS.

Major CARVER: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what action has been taken in cases where the Milk Marketing Board has discovered that any contracts have been made with producers under 21 years of age, in view of the illegality of such proceedings?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have been informed by the Milk Marketing Board that they have not discovered any case in which a contract has been made with a registered producer under 21 years of age.

EGGS.

Mr. HASLAM: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of a marketing scheme for eggs being in contemplation and the increasing difficulties of the home producer owing to the present low prices, while the diminution of imported eggs which was satisfactory last year is less marked in the first four months of this year, he will consider regulating imported supplies at the earliest possible date?

Mr. ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the announcement I made on 15th March last, copy of which I am
sending him, regarding the Government's decision as to the regulation of imports of eggs in shell during the six months 15th March to 14th September. The proposal has been accepted by 12 of the countries concerned representing 76 per cent. of the supplies.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will probably receive the report of the Egg Marketing Board?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot give a date when the report of the Reorganisation Commission will be received.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are the egg producers in this country satisfied, although the other countries seem to be?

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think that the other 12 countries are in any way satisfied, as my hon. and learned Friend would find out if he had to negotiate with them.

WHEAT IMPORTS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the wheat exported from the principal wheat-exporting countries was imported into the United Kingdom in the latest period of 12 months for which the information is available?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: During the year 1933, the aggregate exports of wheat from Australia, Canada, United States, Argentine Republic, Soviet Union and Germany amounted to 13,597,000 tons. In the case of certain of these countries particulars of the exports to the United Kingdom during 1933 cannot yet be stated, but the quantity imported into the United Kingdom and registered during that year as consigned from the countries in question amounted to 5,489,000 tons, or about 40 per cent. of their aggregate exports.

FOREIGN WHEAT FLOUR (ASSISTED EXPORTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what countries, if any, subsidise directly or indirectly the export of wheat flour?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Official in formation on this subject is not complete. The Wheat Advisory Committee, however, made inquiries at the end of last year and the results were embodied in a document of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

WHEAT CONFERENCE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any statement to make in respect of the Wheat Conference?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the statements regarding the proceedings of the Wheat Advisory Committee which have appeared in the Press from time to time. The Committee has adjourned till 27th June. If there is any particular point which my hon. Friend has in mind, perhaps he will communicate with me,

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that recent events, due to the weather, have forced the price of wheat to a level higher than was contemplated when the Commitee met?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The weather conditions have undoubtedly had an effect.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the hon. and gallant Member taking account of the serious drought in the United States of America which may cause a wheat shortage and affect our supplies?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: All relevant facts will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR POSTAGE KATES.

Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General what surcharge, if any, is to be placed upon mails carried by the new air service between Inverness, Kirkwall, and the Orkneys; if he will give consideration to the question of granting reduced air-mail rates, not only for internal air services but on Imperial air-mail routes at present being operated; and, if so, when can a decision on the subject be expected?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): As regards the first part of the question, no additional charge is being made to the public; so far as the second part is concerned, the air postage rates on the Imperial services are constantly under review, and are fixed as low as possible consistent with the avoidance of actual loss.

MAIL ROCKETS.

Mr. THOMAS RAMSAY: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General in view of the use
of mail rockets on the Continent of Europe, if he has considered the possibility of their use in this country, especially in the case of islands where it is difficult to land the mails by ordinary methods when the sea is rough?

Sir K. WOOD: Not yet; but I shall be prepared to consider their use, if such a method is found to be practicable.

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the mistake which exists in the L-Z issue of the London Telephone Directory with regard to the allocation of exchange numbers to residents in Green Lane, Dagenham; and what steps are being taken by his Department to minimise the error?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry that the addresses of certain subscribers in the Ilford section of Green Lane are incorrectly given as Dagenham. The telephone exchange names and numbers are correctly shown. Special steps are being taken to expedite the delivery of any correspondence which may be wrongly addressed as a result of the errors. The addresses will be corrected in the next issue of the appropriate section of the Directory.

TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR CLOCK.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE (for Mr. HALL-CAINE): 26.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, as a result of the experience gained by the British Broadcasting Corporation in the use of the 24-hour clock, he has yet reached any conclusion as to the desirability of introducing this change into the operations of the Post Office?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) on Thursday of last week.

FOREIGN MAILS (CHINA).

Mr. HAMMBRSLEY (for Mr. CHORLTON): 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the decision of the League of Nations Advisory Committee, set up to study problems associated with the non-recognition of Manchukuo, he will, in view of the delay involved in the despatch of mails to Shanghai via Siberia by way of
Vladivostok, take measures to promote the forwarding of such mails through Manchukuo in the future?

Sir K. WOOD: The decision of the League of Nations Advisory Committee to which my hon. Friend refers deals primarily with the question of settling International Postal Accounts, and has no direct bearing on the particular question of the routing of mails to Shanghai. So far as the latter problem is concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in reply to similar questions on 16th April last, the inconvenience caused by the suspension of the transit service through Manchuria for mails between this country and China has for some time past been engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government, and no proper opportunity will be lost of promoting a resumption of the service.

INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION BILL.

Mr. THORNE: 31.
asked the Attorney-General how many resolutions of protest he has received from trade unions, political, and religious organisations against the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and by which of these bodies he has been asked to receive a deputation?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): 161 resolutions of protest against the Incitement to Disaffection Bill have been received by my right hon. and learned Friend, and he has been requested to receive two deputations.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in consequence of the tremendous opposition in this country, the Government would not be well advised to withdraw the Bill?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. and learned Friend judges these protests by their quality rather than by their quantity, and the large bulk of them are based upon a complete misunderstanding of the purpose and provisions of the Bill.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that 4,000,000 organised workers in this country are all against it?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether he has caused any inquiries to be made as to the number of signatories of the protests who have taken the trouble to read the Bill?

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is my hon. and learned Friend to receive these two deputations?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One deputation from the Central Council of the Society of Friends has already been received by my right hon. and learned Friend, and a deputation from the Womens International League will be seen, I understand, on Wednesday next.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a very large number of the people who protest against the Bill have up to the present been loyal supporters of the Government, and has he anything against the quality of such opinions?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was not in any way attacking people who make protests. I stated that their protests had been received, and, from my examination of them, they were largely based upon a complete misunderstanding of the scope and provisions of the Bill.

BOOK "HOLY DEADLOCK."

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 32.
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to a book entitled "Holy Deadlock" wherein His Majesty's judges and courts, and the legal code which they administer in matrimonial causes, are held up to public ridicule and contempt; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have not had an opportunity of obtaining the views of my right hon. and learned Friend on the point raised in the question. I would therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend to repeat his question at a later date.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. REMER: 33.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the property owned by Miss Shawcross, of 107, Great King Street, Macclesfield, at
Numbers 4–6, Welcome Street, Hulme, Manchester, which is certified by an independent agent to be in a fair state of repair and to meet the existing by-laws of the corporation relating to improved town property; if he is aware that Welcome Street is a wide street and, with the demolition of other property in the neighbourhood, would not be overshadowed; that tenants have lived in this property without ill-health for 28 years; and if he will have this property excluded from the demolition scheme in this area?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. This property was included by the corporation of Manchester in the Hulme Clearance Order. My right hon. Friend was satisfied, after considering all the evidence before him, including the report of his inspector who viewed the property, that the property was unfit for human habitation, and properly included in the Order. He accordingly confirmed the Order in November, 1933, and he has no power to re-open the question.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this property has been investigated by several independent people who are of the opinion that it is in accordance with the by-laws of the corporation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No evidence was submitted at the time of the inquiry, and I have personally examined the details of the property which is old, damp and dilapidated. It is 100 years old, with a density of 80 to the acre, and the property-was properly included.

Mr. REMER: In view of the unsatisfactory answer which I have received, I beg to give notice that I shall refer to this matter on the Adjournment on the earliest possible occasion.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 35.
asked the Minister of Health what is the usual policy of local authorities in providing temporary accommodation for people recanted as a result of slum clearance operations; and whether such accommodation is created ad hoc and with the intention of ultimately doing away with it when the need for which it was created has been met?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The accommodation provided by a local authority for
occupation, whether temporarily or permanently, by persons removed from houses to be demolished in the course of slum clearance operations, has usually, if not invariably, been of permanent construction.

Captain DOWER: Does not my hon. Friend think that the word "homeless" would be more suitable than the word "decanted"?

LOAN PROPOSAL.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in examining the recommendations of the report of the Amulree Committee, the Government will consider the desirability of a housing loan on the basis of the issue of bonds bearing no interest, but carrying the right to prizes provided bi-annually to the extent which would normally be covered by such interest, and in this way securing the rapid provision of the houses required while providing a popular form of security?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

CASUAL WARDS.

Mr. BATEY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the regulations with regard to cleanliness, regular fumigation, and overcrowding are observed in the casual wards under the control of the Berks, Bucks, and Oxford joint committee?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, Sir, except that there has been overcrowding in some of the wards. Proposals have been submitted for meeting this; in one case there has been difficulty in securing a suitable site.

PALESTINE (NAZI PROPAGANDA).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any reports as to the recent activities of Nazi propagandists in Palestine and in connection with the Levant Fair at Tel Aviv; whether any Nazi organisation has been formed among Arabs in Palestine; and will he direct an inquiry to be held as to whether any Arab newspapers in Palestine are receiving subsidies from Germany?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have not received reports of the nature suggested in the first part of the question. So far as I am aware, the answer to the second part is in the negative. I see no reason to institute the inquiry suggested in the last part of the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report that a party of police turned up at the Tel Aviv Fair, with Swastikas on their uniforms? If he has not seen it, will be make inquiries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I saw some such rumour, but I certainly should not give any circulation to a report of that kind unless I were satisfied of the truth of it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the ill-feeling in Palestine, and will he inquire whether there is any truth whatever in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It seems to me that the responsibility for any ill-feeling that may be created by those reports rests with those who circulate them, and not with the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the ill-feeling is created, not by the circulation of the report, but according to whether it is a fact or not. Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself that there is no foundation whatever for that extraordinarily unpleasant report?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If I were to follow up every report of any sort or kind that is circulated and treat it as a responsible report, I should be wasting a great deal of time. I am perfectly certain that, if there were anything to be commented on in the conduct of the police in Palestine, the High Commissioner on the spot would take immediate action and report to me.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (REPORT).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when it is expected that the Committee of Privileges will present its report on the matter it has lately been considering?

The PRIME MINISTER: The committee will meet again on Wednesday and
I anticipate that it will then settle the date of its report.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the long period, over a month, that the Committee has taken to consider its report, will the right hon. Gentleman, when the report is published, arrange to give the House adequate time to consider it before it proceeds to a debate; in other words, will he give a week between the publication of the report and debate in this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can make no promise of that nature. The House will have an early opportunity of considering the report, but I think the hon. and gallant Member is wrong in saying that the Committee has taken a month to consider its report. He will remember that a vacation took place in the sittings of the House.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman give more than one day between the publication of the report and debate in this House so as to allow hon. Members to become familiar with the terms of the report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certain questions have to be taken into account in settling the date of the debate, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will communicate through the usual channels, I am sure they will do their best not only to accommodate him but the whole House.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL (STATUTORY COMMITTEE).

Mr. THORNE: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state whether the chairman, vice-chairman, and members of the Statutory Committee in connection with the Unemployment Bill have been appointed; and what salaries they are to receive?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on these matters.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman already made up his mind as to the way he is going to receive nominations?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. That is a matter which will have to be considered in all its bearings. The final responsibility rests with the Government.

REDUCTION. OF WORKING HOURS (GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM).

Mr. THORNE: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government's memorandum on the reduction of working hours that was submitted to the International Labour Office Conference in Geneva will be issued as a White Paper for circulation to Members of the House?

Sir H. BETTERTON: This has already been done, and I would refer the hon. Member to the relevant White Paper (Cmd. 4584) to which I called his attention on 18th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

HULL GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

Brigadier-General NATION: 51.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether consideration has been given to the proposals recently submitted to him by the local authorities regarding Hull Grammar School; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the subject?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As my hon. Friend has already informed the hon. and gallant Member, the Board have suggested to the Town Clerk of Hull that a conference be held between representatives of the governors of the grammar school and the local education authority and His Majesty's inspectors on the governors' proposal.

AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION.

Major CARVER: 52.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the policy of his Department with regard to the proposal that children over 12 years of age should have the option of practical instruction on a farm for three half-days a week; and whether his Department has received any applications from local education authorities suggesting this?

Captain HUDSON: The Board have received a suggestion of the kind mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member from the Education Committee of the National Farmers' Union, and they propose to invite representatives of the union to discuss it informally with them. The proposal raises wide issues which it
would not be possible to deal with satisfactorily within the limits of question and answer. No proposal of the kind has been made to the Board by any local education authority.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In the course of his investigations, will the President of the Board of Education inquire into the practice which prevails in Tasmania, where, in the rural schools, all children begin to learn agriculture from the date of their entrance into school and are excellent agriculturists by the time that they leave?

TBACHEES' CERTIFICATES (DOMINION SERVICE).

Miss RATHBONE: 53.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he is aware of the hardship inflicted upon teachers who have obtained their teaching experience in the Dominions by the refusal of the board to recognise such experience as qualifying a teacher to rank as a certified teacher even when his education and training have been obtained in Great Britain and would otherwise qualify him for certification; and whether he will amend the regulations so as to remove this hardship?

Captain HUDSON: My hon. Friend assumes that the hon. Member is referring to recognition as a certificated teacher, under Schedule 1 (1) (c) of the Code, of a person who has obtained a university degree and a teaching diploma but has not followed an approved course of training. For the purpose of this form of recognition a teacher must have completed four years' approved teaching service, and while the only service which the Board are normally prepared to accept for this purpose is satisfactory service in recognised schools in this country, they are not prevented from accepting satisfactory service elsewhere if it should be thought desirable in any particular case.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 55.
asked the Home Secretary the number of subscribers in connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary Fund now living; and whether there is any present intention of taking steps to wind up the fund?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The existing subscribers to the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund now number 1,647. The fund is in process of being wound up as the existing subscribers die.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (UNIVERSITY STUDENTS).

Miss RATHBONE: 66.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in some registration districts university students residing in a hall of residence during the term are refused registration as voters on the ground that the university hall is not their home, and are similarly refused registration in their home towns on the ground that they are residing elsewhere; whether he will state in which district students should be registered; and whether he will issue instructions to registration officers accordingly?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention has not been called to such cases. Legal questions are involved, which cannot be authoritatively decided except by the Courts: but so far as I am aware the view on which registration officers generally act is that for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise university students should be regarded as resident at their homes. If the hon. Member will give me details of particular cases, I will consider whether there is any action I can usefully take?

BROADCASTING (OXFORD UNIVERSITY).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the forthcoming broadcast of the activities of Oxford University conducted by Lord Halifax, its chancellor; whether he is satisfied that this is consonant with the terms on which this university receives grants from the University Grants Committee; and whether he will consider recommending to the committee that it should refrain from making grants to a university unless it agrees not to indulge in advertisement through the medium of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, and my right hon. Friend
can see no ground for taking such a course as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If he will not do that, will he impress upon his Noble Friend the importance, at any rate, of dignity even in advertising?

LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN (REMUNERATION).

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to restore the cut in the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, to what extent?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. The emergency reductions in the salaries of the Law Officers, consequent upon the crisis in the autumn of 1931, will be restored, as to one-half, on 1st July next.

Mr. KNIGHT: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of the total emoluments of each of the Law Officers of the Crown during the last financial year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total emoluments of the Law Officers during the last financial year, inclusive of salary in each case at the rate of £2,000 a year, were as follow: The Attorney-General £11,483, the Solicitor-General, during the months of April to October, £3,802, and his successor during the subsequent period of the year £4,731.

TRANSPORT (KERB-STONES).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the danger of square kerb-stones overturning motor-vehicles in cases of skidding; and whether he will consider the advantages of using bevelled kerb-stones on rural roads in the interests of safety?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): It is the practice of highway authorities to fix bevelled kerbs in situations where their use is specially desirable, but I do not think it can be said that square-edged kerbs are necessarily dangerous or that bevelled kerbs would necessarily make for greater public safety.

INDIA (PRISON ADMINISTRATION).

Miss RATHBONE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India what reforms in Indian prison administration have been carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Indian Jails Committee, 1919–20; which of the committee's recommendations have not been acted upon, and the reasons for the rejection of, or delay in acting upon, these recommendations; in particular, how many convict warders were employed in 1920 and how many are now employed; how many Borstal institutions and reformatory schools are available for young offenders under 21; how many full-time probation officers and how many adult and young offenders, respectively, have been placed on probation in British India; and how many offenders under 21 have been sent to prison during the last 12 months for which records are available?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Information showing the progress made in giving effect to the very numerous recommendations of the Committee will be found in the gaol administration reports published annually by the local governments. I have no information beyond what is contained in those reports, but I have asked the Government of India to furnish me with a statement on the subject, including the latest available information on the particular points mentioned in the question.

PORTUGAL (BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST).

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE (for Mr. HALL-CAINE): 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a report from the British Consul at Lisbon with regard to the recent arrest and unreasonable treatment of a British visitor to Estoril, Portugal; and whether he is satisfied that the matter will be suitably concluded?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Consul at Lisbon has reported that he has made representations to the local authorities and that the matter is under investigation. It is impossible at this stage to say what the result will be.

NINE-POWER TREATY.

Mr. LUNN (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): 3.
asked the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of the other Powers who were signatories to the Nine-Power Treaty towards the recent coup-de-main by Japan in Manchuria; and what steps the British Government intends to take to ensure that the Nine-Power Treaty is loyally observed by all parties?

Sir J. SIMON: The attitude towards this question of the signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty who are also members of the League has been made clear in the report adopted by the Assembly of the League on the 24th February, 1933. The remaining signatory—the United States—has expressed agreement with the terms of the report. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government are observing the terms of the report and have no reason to believe that the other signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty who have adopted the report are not doing likewise.

Sir STAFFORD GRIPPS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Japan is observing the Treaty?

Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. and learned Member will examine the terms of my answer, I think he will see that it is entirely consistent and does not involve the proposition which he has put.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am asking my right hon. Friend whether he is of the opinion that Japan, one of the parties to the Treaty, is loyally observing the Nine-Power Treaty?

Sir J. SIMON: That question does not arise out of the question or the answer.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The question is,
what steps the British Government intend to take to ensure that the Nine-Power Treaty is loyally observed by all parties.
One of the parties is Japan, and I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that Japan is loyally observing the Nine-Power Treaty?

Sir J. SIMON: With all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I do not think that is a matter with rises out of the question.

BRITISH GUIANA (CANE CULTIVATION).

Mr. LUNN (for Mr. RHYS DAVIES): 36.
asked the Secretary of State
for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of British Guiana has refused a loan to the farmers of Beterver-wagting-Triumph to renew their cane cultivation; and whether he will make representations to the authorities on this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware that a loan has been refused, but the Governor of British Guiana has recommended the allocation of $10,676 out of funds available for relief measures in connection with the floods to the area to which the hon. Member refers. This sum will be used for the improvement of the village and will provide employment and maintenance for the villagers while reestablishing their cultivations. This recommendation is now receiving my consideration.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that sum will meet the emergency?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. I would not commit myself to any particular sum, but I am satisfied that every necessary step is being taken on this point.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir William Jenkins to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Shops Bill [Lords]).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Alteration of Customs duties on colonial sugar, molasses, etc.)

3.31 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out from "aforesaid" to "shall" in line 11.
Hon. Members will realise that this Amendment has been put on the Paper with the object of raising the question of quotas as applied to the production of colonial sugar and the importation of that sugar into this country. May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether I may refer to the next Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name?

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that the two Amendments in effect form one.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I thank you for that statement, which will make it easier for the Committee to appreciate the true bearing of the Amendment which I have moved. The first Amendment is to leave out the words "being sugar accompanied by a quota certificate," and the second Amendment proposes to leave out Subsection (2) of the Clause, which is the definition of the quota certificate. I always approach questions relating to sugar with great caution. For some reason or other sugar is always surrounded with a most peculiar set of rules and regulations of every description, with cartels and international arrangements which make it a subject of very great difficulty for the ordinary layman to understand. But here I think that the matter, on the face of it at any rate, is fairly simple.
Sugar is imported into this country from a variety of sources. Some comes from foreign countries, some from Dominion sources and some from colonial sources. From the sugar - growing Colonies, Mauritius and the West Indies, the imports during the last calendar year, 1933, amounted, I believe, to 560,000 odd tons. That sugar has been subject in the past to two different rates of duty. There is what is called the certificated sugar, that is sugar in respect
of which a quota has been granted, which comes in at a lower rate, and the uncertificated sugar which is subject to a higher rate of duty. The Bill proposes to vary the rates which were previously in existence. It is proposed to make a slight increase in the rate on uncertificated sugar, but on the certificated sugar it is proposed to make a large decrease in the duty. The old rate on the uncertificated sugar was 4s. 8.2d. and the new rate is 5s. 10d. For the certificated sugar the old rate was 3s. 6.5d. and the new rate is 2s. 4.7d., from which it will appear that the approximate difference between the two rates is 1s. 2d. on the old and 3s. 5d. on the new rate, which shows that there is a very big advantage now to be given to the quota certificated sugar.
At the same time the amount of the certificated sugar that is to be allowed in is very considerably increased. It is proposed now that the amount to be allowed in should extend to 360,000 tons. Coparing that with the amount of 560,000 tons, which was imported from our Colonial sugar-producing Colonies last year, it means that if the whole amount came into this country, 360,000 tons is to come in at the new lower rate, whereas 200,000 tons will be at a very much higher rate because it has not the advantage of the certificate. The amount to be imported is increased to 360,000 tons, and that is all to the advantage, because that amount will come in at a very much lower rate, and it is all to the good that our Colonial sugar should have the advantage of coming in at the lowest possible rate. But I really fail to see why the principle of the quota, which has been called "that insane instrument" which is used nowadays in making these arrangements for exports and imports between different countries, should be applied in this case. I know it has been suggested that this has been done to suit some arrangement by which sugar which would have come to this country will be diverted to Canada.
Frankly, I do not quite understand how that will work out, and the Committee will be glad to understand how the proposal will take shape. But what I really object to is that we should have a quota at all applied to the production of Colonial sugar. On what basis is the quota allocated to the different sugar-producing Colonies? Why cannot the
sugar-producing Colonies know exactly what the rate of duty here will be, and why should it not be left to them to make their arrangements accordingly? It is difficult enough, one knows, to meet the variations which may be made in duty, but when they have the variation in a quota also added that makes it still more difficult for the producers, who are possibly trying to raise large capital in order to extend the growth of sugar in our Colonies; it makes it more difficult for them when they do not know what quota may be applied in future years or on what basis it is to be applied. I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time, because there are a great many Amendments down to this Finance Bill, but I think the Committee ought to understand at the outset the effect of the working of this quota upon our sugar-producing Colonies. I have confined my remarks to the Colonies. I have left out of consideration sugar coming from the Dominions or foreign countries. I am concerned that our Colonies, so many of which depend almost entirely on their sugar production, should have the freest access to this market, which is the best market in the world. One would like to see those Colonies having the most unrestricted access to this market by the widest preferential door which this country can open.

3.41 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that the hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment in order to get a general explanation of these proposals. If we were to accept an Amendment in this form it would have the effect of giving the new preference of 6s. 9d., not to a limited amount of sugar but to all sugar which came from Colonial sources and would have the result of giving a much larger preference than the Treasury ever contemplated—larger, indeed, than would be at all reasonable—and it would also have the effect of diverting all Colonial sugar from other markets to which it ordinarily goes, to this market. I am sure that none of those things is within the intention of the hon. Gentleman and therefore I do not propose to say any more about the precise terms of the Amendment. I think I have said enough to show that its
results would be different from what the hon. Member or the Committee would wish to do.
Where I think the hon. Member has got into a difficulty or into a misunderstanding, which is perhaps not his fault as much as ours, is in the word "quota." This is a term which is used to signify a number of different meanings. It is not used here in order to suggest that there is any limitation in the amount of sugar which can come either from the Colonies or from the Dominions. There is no question here of saying "This is the amount of sugar which may come in and beyond that amount entry is prohibited." Sugar can be sent here without limitation. The only question is what is to be the rate of duty and the rate of preference applicable to the sugar which comes here. The Committee will remember that two years ago it was the intention of the House in the Finance Act of 1932 to give an added advantage to Colonial sugar because of the peculiar needs of the Crown Colonies. I need not go into the merits of that proposal. It was generally accepted in the House.
The way in which that benefit was given by the Finance Act of 1932 was to create in the first place a flat rate increase of 1s. in the preference on Colonial sugar, and, in the second place, to give a further 1s. per cwt. of preference on a specified amount of sugar coming from different Colonies and distributed among those Colonies in proportion to their relative production and export. It was contemplated when that was done that adding the 1s. preference would make the preference in the United Kingdom and the preference in Canada roughly the same and that, the two being on an equality, the advantage would be given to the Colonies without any diversion of supplies. The certificate system was deliberately designed in order that while each Colony might have that further benefit, at the same lime, by means of the certificate, which might either be used by a Colony itself or be negotiated and transferred to another Colony, there would be no diversion of the sugar exports from the ordinary channels.
In fact, while the certificate system has worked admirably as a piece of commercial machinery as between the different Colonies, it has not worked in the way we expected in relation to the Canadian
trade. There has been the depreciation in the Canadian dollar and there are certian other reasons, but what in fact happened was not what we expected or intended. The Colonial exporter found that he could get a better price here than in Canada, and therefore there was a marked tendency to divert supplies to this country which would ordinarily have gone from the West Indies to Canada. As I say, that was never intended and it is proposed here to give to the Colonies the same or an equivalent financial advantage, such as they would have continued to enjoy had the machinery of the Finance Act of 1932 continued in operation—the financial result will be approximately the same—but to give it to them without encouraging any diversion of sugar supplies.
We abolish the extra 1s. flat rate preference, and we abolish the old certificate system. That is the first step. We get back to a flat rate of preference which in effect means that the rate of preference for Dominion and Colonial sugar alike will be 3s. 9d. Then, in order to give the Colonies a financial advantage similar to that which they were enjoying before we give a certificate of 3s. per cwt. or £3 per ton on 360,000 tons. That will be distributed among the different Colonies in proportions on a formula which is based, first, on the actual advantage enjoyed in respect of certificated sugar in the past, and, secondly, on the aggregate export based on the best year of each Colony. That means that we shall give the same financial advantage to the Colonies, and we shall give it in a very convenient way, enabling the Colony which prefers sending its sugar to Canada to negotiate its certificate with another Colony which ordinarily sends sugar to this country. That will restore the ordinary flow of trade as between the West Indies and Canada while giving each Colony a financial advantage equivalent to that which it enjoys at the present time.

Sir R. HAMILTON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation which is I must say rather difficult to follow, may I ask him are these certificates freely transferable as between the different Colonies? I have seen some comments in regard to the working of this and I would like to know whether it means that a Colony can transfer any portion of its quota certificate which it does not use to some other part of the Empire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly to any other Colony. It is all explained clearly in the White Paper. Each Colony gets so many certificates in proportion to its production. It can either use those certificates and attach them to its own export to this country, or, if it does not wish to export to this country, it can transfer to some other Colony. The certificate system, I may say, has worked admirably in practice.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2 (Customs duties on hydrocarbon oils in refineries) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Measurement of artificially heated hydrocarbon oils for purpose of customs duty, etc.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.51 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should like to ask a question as regards the method of charging for hydrocarbon oils. I understand that under this Clause, which deals with hydrocarbon oils in the course of manufacture, or of distillation, or something of that sort, where they are normally submitted to a higher temperature than the atmospheric temperature and, therefore, have a greater volume, the intention is to reduce them to the volume which they would have at a normal atmospheric temperature. I want to ask whether this applies also to oils, for instance, in tanks which are heated by the sun and which often rise considerably above 60 degrees Fahrenheit, whether this is intended to make the normal measurement, for the purpose of Customs duty, gallonage at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, whether in future it is intended that all measurements shall be reduced to that common datum level, and whether they are measurements which are smaller because of extreme cold or higher because of heat than they would be if taken at that level. It seems that if this principle is to be introduced of taking a standard temperature for ascertaining the volume which is to be charged, it ought to be applied throughout to all volumes which are measured; they ought all to be reduced to the standard temperature, and it ought not
merely to be applied in the case where the heating is in the course of some manufacturing process. The term "artificially heated" would presumably cover heating by sun heat in a tank, when heating would be due to the colour, very largely, of the tank, and that would be artificial. I should like to know whether such a case is intended to be and is covered by this Clause.

3.52 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The clause only applies to artificially heated oils; for the purpose of ascertaining the Customs duty chargeable, it only applies to artificially heated oils, and not to oils heated by the sun.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The point is this, that the sun may heat oil naturally if the oil is exposed to it, but if the oil was in a dark tank, with a good heat absorption surface, the oil would be heated by the sun, and that would be purely artificial. Is that case covered by this Clause?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. and learned Gentleman's scientific knowledge may be greater than mine. I can only inform him that this form of measurement has been agreed with the trade, and, therefore, no injustice will be done.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I wanted to know what it meant.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The trade are willing, I understand, to face the ordinary atmospheric variations. I think that is a complete and lucid answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Increase of customs duty on are-lamp carbons.)

3.54 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out "five shillings," and to insert "one shilling and sixpence."
It is within the knowledge of the Committee that arc-lamp carbons, which are to be subject to a considerable increase of duty under this Clause, were declared subject to a duty as far back as 1921, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act of that year. The duty then was at the rate of 33⅓ per cent., and the Committee
will remember that the reasons given for imposing that duty on a very wide range of articles at that time were manifold. There was, first, the reason that an article might be produced in what was known as a key industry—the safeguarding of key industries was one of the objects of that Act of Parliament—and then there was protection against dumping. These articles became subject to the very high rate of duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem, and that duty has been maintained. Then we find that in this Clause it is proposed that the duty shall be raised, in the case of arc-lamp carbons of more than 14 millimetres in diameter, to a rate of 5s., and, in the case of carbons of less than 14 millimetres in diameter, to a rate of 7s. 6d. per pound weight. The Committee will observe that this is a very high rate of duty indeed and must have a very considerable effect on the consumers, the people who use arc-lamp carbons for an ever-increasing range of purposes in this country.
I was astonished, when I looked at the Trade and Navigation Eeturns, to find the enormous quantities of carbons that are being used. I have not been able to ascertain the exact allocation of those quantities, which run into hundreds of millions a year. I was, as I say, astonished when I saw the figures, but we find that arc-lamp carbons are being used in this country very largely for projection purposes in cinemas, an entirely new use, and that projection is exclusively done by means of arc-lamps using these carbons, which are now subject to this duty. Then photo-printing, a practice which is gaining considerably in its application, especially in engineering shops and for purposes of that kind, such as the printing of documents of all kinds, is done by means of arc-lamps, which use very considerable quantities of these carbons, which are imported and become subject to this duty. Again we find that there is, for the purpose of the taking of films, an artificial lighting which is done almost exclusively by the arc-lamps; and in hospitals and clinics the lighting, which has now become a very general feature of medical therapeutics, is done also by these arc-lamps, which are used in a lesser degree for the lighting of shops and factories, and ships in some cases.
The Committee will be astonished to find that even after the curtailment which
we have seen under the Import Duties Act the use of these arc-lamp carbons runs into 150,000,000 or 200,000,000. I am not sure whether the rate of consumption this year will reach as high a figure, but I think that during the four months of this year the consumption has run into between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000, so that at any rate there is an enormous quantity of these commodities which we import; and I am at a loss to explain why these commodities cannot be produced at home and why they should be subject, when imported, to this very high duty. I understand that the ad valorem duty runs into 50 or 100 per cent., but in many cases works out at from 300 to 500 per cent., on the value of the imported commodities. There is no instance of a dutiable rate in this country which runs anywhere as high as the rate now proposed for these carbons. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give the Committee very much more information than has been offered so far. We had a Debate less than a month ago, in which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) gave the House a good deal of information which he had collected. No full explanation was given to the House. The Debate came to an end very abruptly, and the House is still wishing for the full reply to the statement of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green.
I, too, would like a good deal more information, first, with regard to the effect on the industries and the public services to which I have referred, and whether there is not a danger that this high duty is going to curtail facilities for such services as hospital services. The next point is, have the consumers been consulted? Have they been given an opportunity of expressing their opinion? Have the Government come to this decision with the interested parties in the trade who buy and sell or manufacture these carbons without consultation with the consumers, who must be very intimately interested in the price and the supply? Another point on which I would like to have information is this. We understand that competition in manufacture comes principally from Germany, France, and, in part, from Japan. Why is there a deficiency of the raw material in this country? Or is the failure to manufacture on equally economic grounds with those of competitors due to lack of experience? Seeing
that these duties have become considerable since 1921, why is it that after 12 years of so-called protection—very heavy protection, indeed—we do not maintain our competitive capacity in respect to the manufacture of this kind of article? This is an unheard-of high rate of duty. It is going to bear very onerously indeed upon the consumers in the various industries and services to which I have called attention, and we would like to know whether there is any special reason why this high duty should be imposed. Unless that satisfaction be given to the Committee, we shall be compelled to ask the Committee to divide against this Clause.

4.4 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I would like to support this Amendment. There is another Amendment in my name on the Order Paper, with a similar object, but this Amendment serves very much the same purpose, because it raises the whole issue, and proposes to lower the proposed duty. But before I put forward my arguments, I want to be allowed to correct a statement which I made when I raised this matter on the Budget Resolutions. As a matter of fact, the point was not an argument for or against the duty, but it was, to some extent, a reflection upon the Customs, not that it was meant exactly for that purpose, but it had that effect. I was rather startled, as I think the House was, with the information given it. I suggested that the day after the Budget Resolutions had passed, an importer of some £1,500 worth of these carbons had been asked to pay a duty of £10,000. This statement was made to me—by the way, before a colleague in the House—by a man upon whom I thought I could rely. It naturally impressed the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and he dwelt upon it particularly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite properly, asked me to give the name of the ship and the port, and when I sounded my informant and asked him for these particulars, he refused to divulge either. Of course, I can only unreservedly withdraw my statement. I regret that I gave it currency. My only excuse is that when one is given figures in such detail, one naturally assumes that they are made by a responsible person who is prepared to substantiate them. All I can say is that it was not
germane to the argument for or against this particular duty, and I hope that the Committee will accept my apology, because I think it is the first time I have had to withdraw a statement. With all these complex duties, with so many interests concerned, when you come for information you must, to some extent, be guided by experts.
Let me come to this very remarkable duty. No one could be very much moved about electric carbons. The average person does not handle the article. It does not mean very much to him. Probably he does not know how it is used, worked or made, or what is its exact purpose. But, naturally, it is our duty, as we are responsible for taxation, to scrutinise every new duty and every old duty when it is altered, modified, reduced or increased, as the case may be. The Mover of this Amendment, quite rightly, said that this is an old duty. It dates back to the key industries, but it is apart from the ordinary tariff duties or even the Safeguarding duties. They were imposed, be it remembered, to protect certain industries which were necessary for national defence or for our national safety, and this one was imposed in 1921 to the extent of 33⅓ per cent., which at the time was considered adequate. Then, in 1926, the basis of it was altered from an ad valorem duty to a duty on weight of 1s. a pound, which was considered a more effective way of giving protection to the industry concerned, and to be more or less equivalent to 33⅓ per cent. It has been charged up to the date of the Budget at the rate of 1s. a pound, net imported weight.
There was some dispute as to the effect of this duty upon the article in question. I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade fell into the not unnatural mistake of basing his defence not on the import price but on the list price. I think that I am right in saying that the list price is the published price, the selling price of the importer and manufacturer of this article. I might explain that it is an article of commerce which assumes a great variety of purposes, and is subject to very heavy overhead charges. The dealers in these articles, not only the importers, but the merchants and business people who handle these articles, have to keep a very
elaborate staff of mechanics and engineers to keep the carbons in the lamps in working. The gross profit put on the article, therefore, is considerable, and the list price is a very different thing from the invoice price. I am assured—and I have figures here which, perhaps, are familiar to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Parliamentary Secretary—that the old duty which is now being increased from 1s. to 5s. 6d. and 7s. 6d., according to the quality of the article, was something like 80 per cent. of protection to the producer in this country.
Even in these days, I venture to suggest that that is not inadequate protection. Many of the industries whose claims my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is so eloquent in putting forward year in and year out, week in and week out, would be only too glad to get 80 per cent. protection; in fact it would be far beyond his wildest dreams. I am going to suggest that, at any rate, since 1927 the manufacturer of electric carbons in this country has had an equivalent protection of something like 80 per cent. and if any industry is to be self-reliant, is to be able to build itself up on a sound basis and prove itself a commercial proposition, surely if it has 80 per cent. protection for seven or eight years, that is all for which it is reasonable to ask, and I think I have the Committee with me in that.
In 1927–28 the imports were £23,000, in round figures, and the duty collected by the Customs was over £18,000. The next year the imports were £26,000, and the duty collected was £21,000. In 1929–30 the imports were £26,000 and the duty collected was £21,000. In 1930–31 there began the operation of the depreciated exchange. The Parliamentary Secretary again fell into a natural error. He will have an opportunity of putting me right, but, after all, we are here to debate the duty, and I think that we are quite right in putting forward the points which occur to us. He seems to have overlooked the fact that the year 1930–31 was the year when the depreciated exchange began to operate, when sterling went down in value and relatively the mark went up in value. In 1930–31, therefore, the imports went up in value in sterling, but not to any extent in marks. The imports in that year were £33,000, and the duty collected was £23,000. In 1931–32, the imports were £26,000 and the duty collected was
£19,000. In 1932–33 the imports were £36,000 and the duty was about the same, £19,000; while the quantity of imports for the calendar year 1933 was £46,000, and the duty collected was £21,000. In other words, if you take into account the depreciated exchange, the amount of imports has remained more or less constant, and I submit that on the invoice price, the only effective way to judge the operation of the duty, the protection that has been afforded has been something like 80 per cent.
It should be made clear to the Committee what is the value on which you are levelling this 1s. duty, now raised to 6s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. per lb. The most expensive article imported is 3s. 7d. c.i.f. The cheaper kind comes down to 1s. 4d., but for the larger amount of carbon imported, the principal article of commerce, the article used in the homely cinema in every village, town and city in the country, the value of the carbon works out at something like 2s. 3d. a lb. If you add to that a duty of 7s. 6d., it will be seen that the duty amounts to something very near prohibition. It certainly cannot be argued that this is a case of dumping. In the last resort when the case is rather weaker than usual the defence falls back on the argument of dumping. Here it is not a case of unfair competition and selling an article below the cost of production, or alternatively producing it by cheap labour. There has been nothing of that kind.
There is a cartel, an arrangement between the English manufacturer and the Continental manufacturer for the Continental carbons to be sold at a higher rate than the English carbons. I have the printed agreement here. It is the more expensive carbons that are imported. The cheaper and lower quality carbons for the cheaper cinema houses and for various other purposes are supplied at home. The more expensive, more scientifically made, more effective and more efficient Carbon has come from abroad. I will not bother the Committee with this very complicated document, for it is very legal and is open to many great objections. I do not like cartels. One of the inevitable results of these new tariffs and quotas is a system of international trade agreements to keep up prices and to limit supplies. This agreement meets
the suggestion which I understand is to be made by some of the defendants of this exorbitantly high duty, that there has been dumping or unfair competition. It destroys that argument and shows that there is not a tittle of justification for the suggestion. This agreement will probably be broken, but it is actually binding on the Engflish manufacturers who are now to be given a complete monopoly.
May I deal with the first and, as I think, the most effective argument for this duty, that of national defence? That was the justification urged for the imposition of this new duty in 1921. Selected carbons are vital for searchlights, especially in such things as air-raids and for our Navy. I am assured, and it is admitted by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that they are getting already, under the existing unaltered duties, all their supplies in England from the General Electric Company. Therefore, there is no need for any alteration in the duty. In fact, I understand that the demand is a comparatively small one and that it can be met by the General Electric Company, which is the big organisation whose chairman, incidentally, has been ennobled by the Government. It is a big powerful organisation that does not require any tariff and is not concerned to any extent with this particular duty, which has been asked for other purposes.
Then there is the ordinary street arc lamp which has more or less gone out of fashion. It gives a very bright light and has been discredited by the splutter due to inefficient electric- carbons. One of the troubles of the electric carbon light, with its daylight effect, has been the cost of carbons and the difficulty of getting from the home producer a satisfactory carbon that does not give that unpleasant splutter which is familiar to every person who walks about the streets of towns where, especially at the seaside, there is any form of electric arc light carbon lamps. They are unpleasant and a strain on the eyes, and that is due to the difficulty of getting the two carbons to meet correctly and burn evenly. The advantage of the Continental article is not its cheapness but its quality. For some reason or other, it has been possible with the aid of their chemists to get a more satisfactory carbon than up to the present we have been able to get.
My hon. Friend above the Gangway correctly referred to the cinema, which has become a very large user. In order to project satisfactorily it is important to get a clear, sharp and steady light. Hon. Members will be familiar how often in a small village cinema they get a flicker and an unsteady and unsatisfactory result on the films. It is trying to the eyes and spoils the picture. That is due to using unsatisfactory carbons. I have a bundle of letters here, and I am informed that the large user, the large super-cinema, the big house that has made such immense progress in popularising the films attach immense importance to getting satisfactory projection, and a steady constant light with no flicker or splutter. They assure me that up to the present they have been dependent on the imported article.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is my hon. Friend certain that the flicker is caused by the carbon Is it not caused by the defective machinery?

Sir P. HARRIS: It is a contributory factor, but I do not pretend to be an expert like my hon. Friend. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade dealt with this question in the last discussion, he was in the impregnable position of being able to say that, in spite of my fairly convincing arguments that the cinema industry objected to this new duty as depriving them of an efficient raw material, the executive of their organisation had not only supported the duty, but had actually asked for it. That was a very remarkable thing. It is remarkable for the initiative to come from a user and that the user of an article should ask for a tariff on it. It certainly wanted some explanation; it was rather mysterious to me, and to the great number of people in the trade it came as a complete surprise. It is a fact, however, as I found on inquiry as to the reason. All I can say is that in a large scattered industry like this, with its great ramifications and members all over the country, this executive does not represent by any means the whole of the industry concerned.
I think it necessary to refer to three or four other interests which are vitally concerned. The first is the photo process of engraving. There are 12,000 machines using this process in the country. It is
an industry which has made remarkable progress in the country. Previously we had to go abroad for this system of engraving, but now England is as good as any other country in the world. In order to get a perfect picture, a constant and steady light is required. Manufacturers of the machinery are quite disinterested and they explained to me that they had Protectionist leanings when it came to their own industry, but that when it came to buying the raw material they took great exception to having to pay an exorbitant price for it. That is only human nature. We are finding that in many other cases. There happens to be a considerable stock of electric carbons in the country, and unless there is a revolution in the production in this country of electric carbons, many of these engravers will be seriously handicapped when the stock is exhausted if the article they want is subject to a large increase of duty such as is proposed.
I also want to refer to the hospitals. In the work of healing perhaps more progress has been made in therapeutic treatment and the use of the violet rays in dealing with some of the most unpleasant diseases than in anything else. In the treatment of skin diseases, lupus, rickets and all kinds of disease—epecially in the treatment of babies—the use of electricity is of benefit, and the electric carbon has been a most effective contribution to medical science and the great healing work of the hospitals. I mentioned the other day St. Bartholomew's Hospital. The consulting engineer, unsought by me, came to me and said that he had made long and laborious experiments in carbons, and he found, in the light of experience, that the imported article was the only carbon that could be relied on to give perfect treatment without risk or danger to the patient and to the satisfaction of the doctor. My hon. Friend met me with a lot of figures to refute my statement. I can only pass on the advice of the technical engineer of St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
I am told that one difficulty is that these carbons are supplied to hospitals, not by the importing firms, but by merchants. I give this to the Committee for what it is worth, for I will not guarantee that the statement is correct; it is very difficult to get to the bottom of an intricate industry of this kind. The carbons
are supplied by merchants who deal in both the British product and the foreign imported article. They are naturally concerned in providing plant, and the merchants' desire is to get good results from the use of their appliances. The electric carbon is part of those appliances, and it is suggested to me that the information which the Parliamentary Secretary has got is due to the fact that the ordinary doctor and hospital engineer gets his supply from these merchants and dealers in carbons, that they consist of all kinds of carbons, and that he is not able to distinguish between the foreign and the British article. In practice, however, they cannot get satisfactory results without being able to draw on the supplies of a foreign carbon which is scientifically efficient for the purpose, can be relied on, is correct, burns longer, and is more satisfactory in operation. There, again, it is not a matter of price, because the continental carbon is the more expensive. It is not bought because it is cheaper, but because it is more satisfactory.
It is a serious matter to come to the House of Commons and, without a word of explanation, without any memorandum, or report, or details, or statistics, to ask Parliament to impose a duty of an almost unprecedented figure—unprecedented not only in this country but, I believe, in any other part of the world. It is a very big duty—at the lowest estimate 200 or 300 per cent. I do not doubt the good faith of the Government in this respect. They were approached by very clever people who were looking after their own interests. I will not say they wanted to feather their nests, that would be putting it on too low a plane, but they wanted to get as good a bargain as possible for their trade. In the matter of these duties we have, during the last few years, built up more or less satisfactory machinery: machinery which is satisfactory to the opponents of tariffs as well as to the defenders of tariffs. When a new duty is wanted those who are asking for it have to go before a tribunal of three highly-qualified and experienced men drawn from different branches of the public service. Owing, however, to the fact that this is a key industry, this particular duty has been withdrawn from the scrutiny of this particular tribunal and that explains why we have no report. It is not on account of any plot on the part of the Government, but because the Act of
Parliament particularly excluded key industries from the purview of the tribunal.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: And all other existing duties.

Sir P. HARRIS: It specifically excluded the key industries.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am told that is so, and I think I am more or less correct. I am afraid I am too old a hand to believe that the Chancellor will give us a concession, though I should be extremely pleased if he could accept the Amendment or agree to lower the duty; but if he is not able to do that I ask whether he cannot submit this duty, which is now in operation, to the Imports Duties Advisory Committee without delay. Let them examine it in all its ramifications, let them find out which are the interests concerned and what repercussions the duty will have on other industries. If that is not possible, let the Chancellor set up a special committee of business men and experts to examine the duty. It is a bad thing for the country, and a bad precedent, to impose new duties on such a scale in the face of opposition from various classes of the users concerned. It would be unfortunate if this should be used as a precedent for other cases. This big duty on a comparatively small article was hidden away in the midst of an important Finance Bill and had it not been for our care it might have gone through this Committee practically undiscussed. I think I have made out a case, first, for the lowering of the duty and, failing that, for its examination by an impartial committee, so that we can have a full report by technical experts on the effect of the duty.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: When the hon. Baronet was referring to this particular duty as being hidden away in the Finance Bill, I thought I must have been dreaming, because I recollect the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically referring to it on Budget day, and it also appears in the financial statement. Therefore, it is hardly fair to suggest that it was hidden away. I thought for the moment he was talking about Clause 5, of which I happen to be somewhat critical, which was not disclosed on Budget day. The Committee will have listened with considerable interest
to the tribute paid by the hon. Baronet to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. He was in a new role there, and it is a sign of regeneration.

Sir P. HARRIS: I have always said it was a good Committee—I do not think we could have got three more competent men—if we are to have a Committee of that kind.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but the hon. Baronet was praising the existence of the Committee, and not merely its composition. He went on to imply that the key industry duties had been specially taken away from the purview of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. If he will read Section 1 or 2 of the Import Duties Act he will find that it excluded all duties imposed under other enactments. All sorts of duties under other enactments were excluded, and there was no particular exclusion of the key industries duty. I hope I may have the attention of the hon. Baronet, because I listened with great care to him. He tried to explain that arc lamps had vanished from the streets of our cities because they were supplied with such bad British carbons. I should have thought he was aware that in recent years we have had the development of the gas-filled metal filament lamp, which, unlike the arc lamp, does not have to be trimmed daily, and therefore the cost of maintenance is very much lower. Arc lamps are now used only where, for technical reasons, it is impossible to have the gas-filled lamps. Therefore, his disquisition as to the reason for arc lamps vanishing from the streets is wrong technically.
The hon. Baronet professed to speak on behalf of consumers. I have not been approched by any consumers. One constituent who is an importer came to see me, but I had to tell him that I could not take his point of view. Let us realise why these carbons are dutiable. Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, was not intended as a protectionist Measure in the ordinary sense, but was a device to give us the security that in time of war we should have a supply of certain, essential articles which in pre-War days were not produced in this country in satisfactory quantities. I believe I am correct in saying that if it had not been for the patriotism of the General Electric Company in pre-War
days in deliberately maintaining a factory which was running at a loss we should have been in a very grave situation indeed through lack of arc lamp carbons when war broke out. The most important consumers, the cinema interests, for detailed reasons with which I am not familiar, have been very much perturbed recently about the are carbon situation. I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Baronet does not want to hear the full story.

Sir P. HARRIS: That is an offensive remark. I will now return to my place.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Some time ago the situation was regarded with such seriousness by the cinema industry that they appointed a committee to consider it. They were afraid the time might come when they would be absolutely in the hands of the foreign producer. That committee, which the hon. Baronet rather despised, saying they were not representative, at least had the advantage of being familiar with the situation in its details in a way that the ordinary cinema proprietor up and down the country could not be. I have here a copy of the "Cinematograph Times," the official organ of the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of Great Britain and Ireland, and I read the following from the general council—not the executive committee. It is a leading article on the subject of these very duties, published after Budget Day. The first words will please the hon. Baronet:
Opposition was voiced at the meeting of the General Council, but was soon dealt with when the members realised that firm pledges had been given by the British manufacturers that their prices should not be increased. One or two delegates also pointed out that it was a mistake to describe the new duties as creating a monopoly for any particular firm. There is nothing monopolistic about the duties. They cannot create an exclusive charter for anybody. The suggestion was made that any foreign firm affected would be perfectly at liberty to make its carbons in this country, thereby not only retaining its present business but also adding to employment in this country.
They go on to say:
We may add that we look, in the comparatively near future, for something more than the absence of increase in price. We are looking for a reduction of present prices, and we shall be very much surprised if we are disappointed.
That is the view expressed by the organ of the cinematograph exhibitors. On the next page I see the appropriate headline,
"General Council endorses carbon duties." Then there is a report from the committee. The President says:
I have to tell you this morning that the contemplated measures were taken, and your committee is perfectly satisfied with the safeguards obtained and can assure the general council that an adequate supply of British carbons for all purposes is certain. Furthermore, whatever happens to the prices of foreign carbons, the prices of British carbons will not be increased, in the course of a comparatively short time there will be a reduction in the price of British carbons. That is all the committee think it politic to say.
There were fears that unless something was done the comparatively small number of British manufacturers would be reduced to none, and it was because of this sense of their peril if the manufacture of carbons in this country were destroyed and there were an interruption of foreign supplies that the consumers, in their own interests, supported these duties, which, I agree, are unusually high. But when we find consumers and producers alike agreeing, I do not think the hon. Baronet need worry unduly.

4.43 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The Amendment which we are discussing asks that the figure of 5s. per lb. should be deleted and 1s. 6d. substituted. The duty of 5s. per lb. applies to the larger carbons; there is a duty of 7s. 6d. upon smaller carbons. The Amendment does not propose to alter the duty on the smaller carbons. The greater part of the carbons used in this country are of the smaller dimensions. I appreciate that it is Parliamentary procedure which puts the Amendment in its present form, but I want the Committee to realise that by far the larger number of carbons used in the cinematograph industry are carbons below 14 millimetres in diameter. The Committee must have been very glad to hear from the hon. Baronet the very handsome and complete withdrawal of and apology for the allegations he made on a previous occasion. I need say nothing more about that, and dismiss the incident completely from my mind.
When this matter was last before the Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, on the 26th April, that before the matter came before the House there would be ample opportunity to listen to and consider representations. He
offered on behalf of the Board of Trade, that attention would be given to any fresh considerations put before the Board. In point of fact there has been no fresh consideration before the Board of Trade in response to that invitation. We have had a representation from the importers of German carbons frankly putting before us the position of the importer to the effect that where a duty is imposed it will obviously lessen the volume of imports. That is the situation, of course, in regard to any duty. Those who are accustomed to deal with a foreign article which it is proposed should be excluded for the future naturally have a sense of grievance.
There were photographic representations to the Board, but they seemed to be divided into two groups. There were those who had habitually used British carbons, and those who had used the foreign carbons and had never contemplated using the British. Broadly, the two interests in the photographic trade cancelled out. We had no representative of any hospital, and no fresh considerations of any kind have been put before the Board of Trade since the matter was before the House on 26th April. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment and called attention to the quantity of carbons which are consumed in a normal year in this country, may be interested to learn the results of an analysis which has been made in the Department and which shows how this large quantity of carbons is subdivided. Fully 85 per cent. of the whole is consumed by the cinematograph industry. Photographic work and process engraving consume approximately 10 per cent.; the balance of 5 per cent. covers street lighting and minor purposes and therapeutic work and hospitals. Taking hospitals alone it is estimated that their consumption is something under 2 per cent. I am mentioning these figures in order that the matter may be viewed in its right proportion.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: What about defence purposes?

Dr. BURGIN: The amount used for defence purposes comes within the 5 per cent. which I have just mentioned.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the amount of foreign carbons used by hospitals, I take it that he means that of the amount of imports coming in, 2 per cent. is used in hospitals?

Dr. BURGIN: I was not dealing with imports at all, but with the total retail sales and the total consumption of carbons in this country, and I am pointing out that 85 per cent. of that total is cinema, 10 per cent. is broadly process and photographic, and that there is only 5 per cent. all told to be subdivided among the remaining different processes. The total retail value of the trade is something in the neighbourhood of £300,000 and the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is substantially right in thinking that, on the basis of all foreign carbons excluded, the loss of revenue would be about £20,000. I understood his point to be that the imports have been stabilised and that the duty was roughly £20,000. Those figures accord broadly with the calculations that we have made.

The question arises as to who is likely to be affected by the exclusion of these foreign goods from the British market. Assurances have been given to us that the output capacity of British manufacturers is equal to supplying the whole requirements of the country. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) asked why British manufacturers had not hitherto made these articles in sufficient quantities. The difficulties have been, as the hon. Baronet said, partly owing to a cartel arrangement under which the share given to the British market is relatively small. The possibility of supply is assured, because the supply facilities are adequate for the whole field. As to price, definite undertakings have been given that the price to the consumer shall not be increased; that is, the price of British carbons. If the consumer desire still to use foreign carbons, obviously he will have to pay the duty on them. As far as the cinematograph trade which deals with 85 per cent. of the whole is concerned, there is an undertaking that the price shall actually be reduced. It is hard to find any interest other than that of the importer of the foreign article, the volume of whose imports will necessarily decline, which is likely to be affected. There is no body of complaint and no representations of a new character. The duty was put on for reasons which were fully explained in the Debate of 26th April and which I think it is unnecessary to repeat. It was put on at the joint request of the makers
of the article and the consumers of 85 per cent. The case for the imposition of the duty is clearly made out, all the normal safeguards to see that interests are not affected have been obtained, and undertakings are given by manufacturers that prices will actually be reduced.

4.52 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Parliamentary Secretary has just told us that there was a joint request by the cinematograph exhibitors and the General Electric Company, I take it, as representing the manufacturers; will he tell us what manufacturers' union it was?

Dr. BURGIN: I did not say that it was a manufacturers' union at all. There are only two or three manufacturers in this country, and I think it was a specific manufacturer.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which one?

Sir P. HARRIS: The Ship Carbon Company.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understood that the representation was made by that company and the cinematograph exhibitors at the same time to the Treasury, asking for the duty to be imposed. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether that duty was intended to implement some fresh arrangement that had been made for the international allocation of markets for this article. As the Parliamentary Secertary said, it is known that there have been cartel arrangements for the allocation of territory among the manufacturers operating through the cartel. He told us that one of the reasons why the article was manufactured in small quantities before was that the English portion of the cartel only had a very limited market allocated to them. Can he tell us whether some fresh arrangement has been entered into by the cartel, allocating a larger portion of the market to British manufacturers, and whether it was as a result of that cartel arrangement that the representation was made to the Treasury? In other words, whether we are now legislating to implement an agreement of an international cartel or legislating because we believe it to be right? That seems to be a rather important point in the control of the finances of this country.
The hon. Gentleman told us that there is an undertaking that the price of British carbons will be reduced. I should like to know the form in which that undertaking was made, how far it is binding, whether it is in legal form, and whether the reduction of price is irrespective of the movement of gold prices or sterling prices as regards other commodities. Suppose that the value of the pound falls; will the guarantee of lower price stand, or will it then be said that because of the variation in the value of sterling the price must be increased?
It is a curious practice for the hon. Gentleman to come before the House and ask for a prohibitive duty to be imposed upon an article which is used quite widely, on the basis of an understanding, the terms of which and the parties to which are not disclosed, and neither the method of operation nor any other detail is made public. If we are to have tariff arrangements of this sort, we shall need a body which can make an inquiry—not come to a decision—to ascertain what the facts are, and put the facts before the public if necessary. One thing is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said: the idea that this has anything to do with the Defence Forces is nonsense. There is apparently no ascertainable figure, in the careful analysis which has been made by the Department, or the hon. Gentleman did not mention one, which is referable to the Defence Forces, so we may wipe out of our minds the idea that this has anything on earth to do with them. The way in which this prohibitive duty is put forward is quite unsatisfactory and we shall take steps to oppose it.
There is another matter in the hon. Gentleman's speech on which I should like to comment. He put it so delightfully. He said that an importer who dealt in German carbons had been to the Board of Trade and had explained that his business would disappear, which indeed it will, because that is the intention. The hon. Gentleman said that that is the sort of thing that happens when you impose a tariff. It is always nice to see Members of the National Government pointing out how necessary it is to have methods of confiscation when you legislate. Without any conpensation, the importer's business is just taken away. It may be interesting on some future occasion
to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that confiscation is not such an extraordinary thing.

4.58 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It appears that this duty is of characteristically—I will not say sinister—but mysterious origin. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade emphasised what he thought was a very good point, which was that since the last occasion upon which this duty was discussed, few representatives of the industries concerned have come to the Board of Trade to make representations. It is a most astonishing thing. It is almost unprecedented in the history of the tariff, at any rate in this country, that the users of an article should come to the Board of Trade and to Parliament and ask for a duty on the materials which they use. There can be only one explanation, suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), that it is to operate some international cartel arrangement. It looks like it. It is clear that before this duty is approved there ought to be an impartial committee to inquire into the circumstances in which the duty was proposed.
Another obvious reason why some of these firms may be reluctant to go to the Board of Trade and make themselves conspicuous by opposing the duty, which may be damaging to their interests and to British industry as a whole, is that when the whole of the foreign carbons are excluded they will be left at the mercy of a very few British firms, and they will not be in the least anxious to make themselves conspicuous in the meantime by their hostility to the proposals. The hon. Gentleman further emphasised that no representatives of the hospitals had come to the Board of Trade to make representations against this duty——

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons why the cinematograph exhibitors took action was that they wanted to destroy the cartel?

Sir A. SI NC LAIR: Obviously, the hon. Member has a good deal of information which is denied to me. I think that these matters should be thoroughly examined. It is a very curious thing, land it is not really explained by the assertions
of the hon. Member or by articles in newspapers published by a particular trade; and the House of Commons ought not to be satisfied, before it imposes duties, by articles in such newspapers, but should require a thorough and impartial inquiry into the whole circumstances of this request.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a great point that the hospitals had not come to the Board of Trade to make representations, but every hon. Member knows that the hospitals would be very reluctant to mix themselves up in a matter which had already become one of political controversy in the House of Commons, and, as their interest in it is only 2 per cent. of the total production, they may well have thought that it was not a matter in which they would care to join in opposing the duty. But that does not affect the fact, which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) quoted, that it will to some extent—we cannot say how much—raise the cost of light therapy in this country. I want to know what this guarantee as to reduction of price amounts to. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol pointed out that it would be affected by currency fluctuations, and it will be affected by a great many other things too. If there is that rise in prices which the Government desire, and at which they are aiming, there will certainly be increases in wages. There may be strikes in the industries which are affected by this duty, and, as a result, increases of wages. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest to us that there will be no increase in the price of any article after that? Of course, the contention is absurd on the face of it.
There can be no more foolish policy than to keep out of this country a commodity which is unique, like these German carbons—far better than any commodity which at present, as is admitted on all sides, we are able to produce—a commodity on which users are now willing to pay duty even on the present scale, equivalent to 80 per cent., and for which they are willing to pay higher prices than for the British article. Obviously, if users are willing to pay these higher prices, it must be a remarkably superior article to anything that we have here.
The Government are trying to persuade the German Government and German private debtors to pay their debts. How can they pay their debts in a better form than by providing us with carbons of unique efficiency for the industries and hospitals of this country? To close the door against such a method is surely the height of economic folly.
There are in this matter various difficult technical questions into which a number of hon. Members have suggested there should be an inquiry, a proposal which I support; but really the situation boils down to this: either these British carbons are as good as the foreign carbons or they are not. If they are as good as the foreign carbons, why cannot we rely upon the capacity of the British producers to advertise their own carbons and to sell their own goods in their own country, with the benefit of the goodwill which always goes to a British product as against an imported product?. The Government may suggest that such goodwill does not in fact exist, but how can that be suggested in this case when we are told that the users themselves are asking for this duty in order to compel them to do something which it is perfectly open to them to do voluntarily if they wish? But, if the British carbons are not as good as the foreign, then this duty, intended to be prohibitive, will deprive important industries and hospitals of materials which are necessary to the efficiency of those industries and to the health of the people, and it must have the effect of encouraging inefficiency, because, behind this admittedly prohibitive, and deliberately prohibitive barrier, the British manufacturer will be able to carry on with his old methods of manufacture, and avoid the risks of embarking upon new and more scientific and progressive methods.
The most important argument, which has been urged in favour of the duty in the earlier stages of the Debate, is the argument of defence, and, in fact, these duties have been dealt with as key industry duties, and on that ground, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green pointed out, they have been withdrawn from the purview of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The point raised against my hon. Friend by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams),
who is always so well informed in these matters, really, if he will forgive me for saying so, missed its target, because my hon. Friend's point was merely that in fact these key industry duties have been, along with other duties—though that makes no difference—withdrawn from the purview of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it intended to imply that they have been specially withdrawn?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am sure the hon. Member has misunderstood. At any rate, will he accept the assurance from me and from my hon. Friend that that was not his point? His point was much simpler, namely, that because these duties were dealt with as key industry duties, for that reason only—that is the only reason given by the Government—they have been withdrawn from the purview of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and there has been no inquiry. The hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Government has pointed out that the requirements of defence must be, at the most, something like 2 or 3 per cent. of the whole production, and it came out in an earlier Debate that in fact our defence requirements were met from home sources. Therefore, there is no weight in the argument as to defence, and no reason why these duties should not form the subject of inquiry by the Economic Advisory Committee.

There is, let us admit, a problem. There is apparently a failure on the part of the British makers of these carbons to compete effectively with foreign producers. The Government, in my submission, have adopted the worst method of dealing with the problem. They have been putting up a prohibitive tariff wall which will prevent the Germans from sending here a commodity of the utmost value to us, and will encourage the British manufacturer to continue in his old inefficient ways. Surely, if the cinematograph exhibitors want to see a flourishing British carbon industry, the rational method is to come to an arrangement with the British manufacturers, for which they require no governmental powers—on the one hand a price arrangement under which they would buy the carbons they require, and, on the other, an arrangement, if necessary with the support of the Government, for subsidising research, which would put the British industry in a position equal to and in advance of that of its competitors. That, surely, is the constructive method to follow, and not the method of cowering defensively behind a prohibitive tariff wall. It seems to me that the policy of the Government is dangerous to health and damaging to industry, and, therefore, I shall vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, "That 'five shillings' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 45.

Division No. 261.]
AYES.
[5.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cook, Thomas A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cooke, Douglas


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Albery, Irving James
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crooke, J. Smedley


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Burnett, John George
Dalkeith, Earl of


Aske, Sir Robert William
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dawson, Sir Philip


Baltour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Carver, Major William H.
Dospencer- Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dickie, Jonn P.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Duggan, Hubert John


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Dunglass, Lord


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Bllndell, James
Clarke, Frank
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Clarry, Reginald George
Elmley, Viscount


Borodale, Viscount
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Emrys-Evans, P. V


Bossom, A. C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Coltox, Major William Philip
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Broadbent, Colonel John
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Fermoy, Lord


Brocklebank. C. E. R.
Conant, R. J. E.
Fox, Sir Glfford


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Scone, Lord


Ganzont, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Selley, Harry R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquleten, Frederick Alexander
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Maitland, Adam
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gluckstein, Louls Halle
Makins Brigadier-General Ernest
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Goff, Sir Park
Mannigham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somervell, Sir Donald


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Gulnness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Guneton, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hales, Harold K.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Morgan, Robert H.
Spens, William Patrick


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hartland, George A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hasdlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Munro, Patrick
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hepworth, Joseph
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Pearson, William G.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, Charles U.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Petherick, M.
Train, John


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pike, Cecil F.
Tree, Ronald


Hurd, Sir Percy
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wallace. John (Dunfermline)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kimball, Lawrence
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Knight, Holford
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Remer, John R
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rhys. Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wells, Sidney Richard


Law, Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L
Weymouth, Viscount


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lees-Jones, John
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Levy, Thomas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertfd)


Lewis, Oswald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wolmer, Rt. Hon Viscount


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Salt, Edward W.
Womersley, Sir Walter James


Mabane, William
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart



McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McKie, John Hamilton
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.


NOES.


Acland. Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rothschild, James A. de


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Lawson. John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards. Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wilmot, John


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Ban[...])


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Rea, Walter Russell
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.20 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I do not think we ought to let this duty pass finally without
some further explanation of the methods and the reasons for which it has been imposed. We were assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that the chief reason which had actuated the Government was the fact that the
principal consumers of this commodity, that is to say the cinematograph trade, had come to an agreement with the principal producers that, in the event of this duty being imposed, the price of the commodity would not be raised but would, in fact, be reduced, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) not unnaturally asked what guarantee the Treasury was working on. I imagine it is not the custom for the Treasury to ask the House for a duty unless it is satisfied that the grounds are adequate, and the grounds put forward here are that there is an agreement between producers and consumers. If there is such an agreement, I presume that it is in writing, that it has been seen by the Treasury and approved by them and that they are satisfied that it will be carried out. If that be the case, I do not see why the Committee should not be put in possession of the information. I should like to know between whom this agreement in fact has been made. We know that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association are one party, but who are the other? Are they certain specific firms manufacturing this article? Are they the representatives of all those firms or of only some of them? Can we know the reason why the Treasury is apparently satisfied that the agreement will be carried out? Are they resting solely upon a verbal agreement entered into between the producers and the cinematograph exhibitors, or what are they relying upon? Is there any reason to believe that an agreement of this kind can, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, be permanent in the face of other economic changes? I cannot see how the exhibitors can be satisfied that in fact the prices will be permanently lower.
Another point made by my right hon. Friend needs answering. Why is it necessary for the consumers and the manufacturers of this commodity to ask for a duty? The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said the reason why the exhibitors were asking for it was that they were frightened that the time would come when the carbon manufacturing interests in this country would collapse under the stress of foreign competition, and they would be left wholly at the mercy of the foreign manufacturer. But they had a very simple remedy for
that. They could have gone to the manufacturers and said, "We are aware that foreign competition is damaging you, and we are also frightened of the damage being permanent and disastrous. We will guarantee to use nothing but British carbons if you will guarantee to lower your prices." They could have done that quietly among themselves without coming to the Treasury for this enormous duty. The only answer to that that I can see is that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association does not in fact represent the trade, and could not in fact have carried out such an agreement on behalf of its members. If it has the power to carry out such an agreement as suggested, and if it really represents the trade, it had that very much simpler method of procedure.
A final point to which I should like an answer is that about national defence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the discussion on the Budget Resolutions, said that the question of national defence was the major reason which had influenced the Government all through in considering what modifications should be made from time to time in the duties imposed upon these carbons. We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary an analysis of the use of the carbons. Eighty-five per cent. is used by the cinemas, 10 per cent. by photo-process engraving, and 5 per cent. by all other users combined, of which I think 2 per cent. was hospitals and the remaining 3 per cent. included street lighting and all other uses, including national defence. Therefore, it would be reasonable and fair to say that the amount normally used in time of peace by the fighting services is 2 per cent. or under. It is impossible to believe that even in time of war the use of these carbons would be so immensely multiplied as to make it impossible for English firms to supply the demand. The trade, so far from being stagnant, is making progress. The Morgan Crucible Company is making experiments with a view to producing a better carbon, and it is really working hard at the problem. The General Electric Company, with its very large resources, is certainly not at the mercy of the carbon trade; it is perfectly well able to keep going that branch of its business and to expand it if necessity arises. Of the status of the remaining manufacturer of carbons, the Ship Carbon Company, I know nothing. I do not know whether its
finances are sound, whether it is making a profit, whether it is in danger of collapse, whether it is in despair, whether it thinks only this duty can save it or what its position is; but I should like to know. Before we pass the Clause we are entitled to an answer to the questions which have been put.

5.29 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The questions which have been put deserve an answer. The hon. Member has mentioned the question of national defence, and he seemed to be basing his idea of the importance of the defence services on some percentages which I have given applicable to a year of peace. The point with regard to that is this: In an electric age, when arc lamp carbons are an important feature, it is, in the view of the Government's advisers, very desirable that the supply should not be only in the hands of one firm, however eminent that firm may be. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
I am assured that the Defence Services feel that it is most important they should have in this country a sufficiently strong industry in this line to be able to expand rapidly in time of emergency and they consider that as long as there is this large importation of foreign carbons coming in, we cannot expect this country to be sufficiently safeguarded if we should require, suddenly, a large supply of carbons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1934; col. 1940, Vol. 288.]
It is a question of more than one manufacturer. There is the position I have put to the Committee. At present there is one manufacturer, and it is desired to encourage others. The bon. Member asks about the parties to the agreement of the cinematograph industry. That is an agreement to which the Government are not a party, but the Government came in for the purpose of securing an undertaking. An undertaking with regard to prices has been given to the Government. The parties are the Ship Carbon Company of Great Britain, Limited, and Charles H. Champion and Company, Limited, who are the manufacturers, and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, who are the users. The undertaking with regard to the cinematograph industry is given direct by the manufacturers to the accredited representatives of the industry. With regard to prices to consumers generally, the matter is in writing in what is regarded as quite a satisfactory form,
in that it is an undertaking given direct to His Majesty's Government. It is not necessary to go into the question of whether or not it is legal. The trouble does not arise when undertakings are given to His Majesty's Government.
The only other point I will mention is the one with regard to the cartel. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) appeared to think that this Resolution had something to do with cartels. It was the fact that the cartel limited the prices that could be charged in this country for carbons. That cartel, as in the case of many other manufacturers' associations, has a clause in it by which manufacturers can give notice to leave the cartel should they desire to do so. As long as a manufacturer has any assurance that he will have a share of the market, it is an advantage to remain in the cartel in which he has a small share. As soon as he sees the possibility of a very elaborate share, he very much desires to give his notice under the cartel so as to be no longer under the control and dictation of any foreign interest, but to be able to supply the requirements of the British market from a British source with British labour.
The object of this duty is to encourage, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) very rightly assumed it would be, the manufacture in this country of an article, the raw material of which is lamp black, of which there is an adequate supply, for which there is very great use, and the manufacture in this country of articles free from foreign control altogether and on conditions under which the consumers are protected. That is the reason behind this duty, and, added to the national defence object, it is the only one which, I think, I need put before the Committee.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the suggestion which I made. Why could not the Treasury have suggested, if they are so anxious to encourage trade, that an agreement should have been made within the trade itself to use nothing but English carbons on condition that prices were lowered?

Dr. BURGIN: That is not a matter on which I am called upon to give any opinion. The hon. Member seeks to show that there was an alternative method by
which the trade might achieve the same result, but I am not concerned with that matter. The trade choose to bring it about in this way, and if this method does not carry any objections and the consumers' interests are protected, no harm is done.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tell the House why, after 10 years of protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, we are apparently no nearer being able to hold our own against foreign competition? Is there a technical secret which (he dare not divulge, or is there a simple explanation?

Dr. BURGIN: There was a simple explanation given at length in the Debate on 26th April. The point is that the value of these articles has altered entirely in comparison with their weight, and a duty of so much per pound has now become in ad valorem quite inadequate

owing to the alteration of price compared with weight. There is nothing sinister at all. It is a perfectly simple explanation, but as it had already been given, I did not think it necessary to go over the ground again.

Sir P. HARRIS: I gave figures which rather disproved that. The quality of imports has remained normal during the last seven or eight years. I should like an inquiry. It is a very complicated matter, and obviously a Committee of this House cannot properly probe such a highly technical problem. It is unfortunate that this matter could not have been referred to the Imports Advisory Committee, or that the advice of some other appropriate committee was not taken.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 46.

CLAUSE 6.—(Customs Duty on patent leather.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The first Amendment which I shall take on this Clause is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard)—in page 5, line 4, to leave out "fifteen" and to insert "eleven."

Sir S. CRIPPS: Is the Amendment which comes first out of order, or not selected?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment practically means the negation of the Clause.

Sir S. CRIPPS: It does not amount to the negation of the Clause, but merely says that a certain duty has to be fixed. Prior to that date the matter has to be referred to a Committee. It is still entitled to a duty on a recommendation of the Committee being made.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Committee makes that recommendation, it will be unnecessary.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Further to that point of Order. From the point of view of procedure, the recommendation has to be confirmed by this House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think not. In the ordinary way it is open to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make a recommendation. The object of the Clause is to make an order without going to Advisory Committee.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move in page 5, line 4, to leave out "fifteen," and to insert "eleven."
The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade when moving the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, has been that the whole of the matters have been thoroughly threshed out, and that the recommendations have been made after going into the whole of the facts. We have been told that it is the purpose of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to suggest changes in customs duties in order to protect the home manufacturer of the particular article in respect of which the application is made. I can well understand that. The manufacturer of the article says, "Look there, we are being affected by foreign competition." As a result of the inquiry, the Order comes before the House. This Clause seeks to put a customs duty equal to 15 per cent. on certain kinds of patent leather goods. The Committee ought to be aware of the fact that a new duty of 15 per cent. is not being levied. It is increasing an existing duty from 10 to 15 per cent., and the Committee will observe that it is not being done through the Imports Advisory Committee.
We on this side of the House are not satisfied with the way in which this matter is being manipulated, and I think the Committee ought to be made aware of the history of the matter. On 15th February, 1933, an application was made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase of the duty on certain patent leather from 10 to 15 per cent. Notice was given and a statement from the different interests who were opposing the application was made. The Federation of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers, a British federation in this-country, opposed the application, and the Co-operative Wholesale Society submitted its statement in writing. Later on an inquiry was held, oral evidence was submitted, and the case for the suggested increase from 10 to 15 per cent. was opposed on the ground that the duty was
unnecessary, because there was little production at home of what may be termed patent-shoe leather. As a matter of fact, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary will dispute it, up to a few months ago there was only one firm in this country engaged in the manufacture of patent-shoe leather. I believe there are now two or three. I think he will agree that the production at home is very limited indeed.
After the inquiry had taken place and oral evidence had been submitted, on 6th April the Advisory Committee wrote and said, that the committee did not propose to make any recommendations at present in regard to the application for an additional duty on patent leather. In other words, the committee obviously felt that no case had been made out for an additional duty. Then to the surprise of everybody came the suggested increase in the Finance Bill, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no reference to the matter in his Budget Speech.
The committee have a right to know why this particular departure has been made in the case of patent leather. When I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary I thought he failed to make out a convincing case; at any rate, he did not convince me. Personally, I was not satisfied that he was speaking with his usual confidence, because I do not think he himself is satisfied that this thing has been brought about fairly. What was his argument? The Import Duties Advisory Committee decided that this matter was outside their jurisdiction; that they were concerned with trade within the United Kingdom. If they found the matter likely to benefit somebody else, it was not their business. The real reason for it, he said, was that the Government had found that two sets of industrialists had made a bargain between themselves, one in this country and the other in the Dominion of Canada. Even at Ottawa, with the Government representatives there, they were unaware of the bargain made between the two sets of industrialists. The real reason for this increase was to implement fully this bargain made between the two sets of industrialists. That being so, we think it is grossly unfair. We say there is no case for an increase of duty, because the home producer is not suffering from foreign competition and production is very small. If
any increase of duty is necessary, it should come through the ordinary channels.
To my mind this matter has not been brought about fairly. Is it suggested, simply because two sets of industrialists have made a bargain, that we must implement it? Is this to be taken as a precedent? If two industrialists reach a bargain on another matter, will the Government implement that? There was a bargain made between an industrial section in this country and another in Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary admits it. Because of that the Government decide to implement the bargain by bringing in this Clause, although the Import Duties Advisory Committee have stated that they do not propose to make any recommendation. There is no case for the increase. As regards costs, it was admitted by those bringing forward the application to be about 1½d. to 2½d. per pair of shoes. The extra 5 per cent. is likely to increase the price of shoes by another 1d. or 1½d. So far as cost is concerned, I have evidence in my hand to show that in the case of one particular firm of boot manufacturers they will be mulcted £3,000 or £4,000 as a result of this unnecessary 5 per cent. On the whole, I feel there is no case for the increase, and I hope the Committee will reject it.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. WEST: I have been trying to discover some reasons for this increase, but so far I have been unsuccessful. I thought at first there might be some reason because the Canadian manufacturers have been unloading tariffs on the importation of British leather and allied goods, but I find the contrary is the case. As a matter of fact, I think it is true that Canadian tariffs have been increased so far as British imports are concerned. I have the authority of two Conservative speakers two or three weeks ago for that statement, and I thought that they ought to be experts on tariffs at any rate. The second thing I cannot understand is why the Advisory Committee turned down a recommendation for an increase. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has stated that that was because it was outside their jurisdiction, but that seems a very dubious reason when one considers that the committee heard all the evidence
and arguments of the manufacturers. Why should they hear the evidence if it is outside their jurisdiction?
Another point that struck me was that it could not be a question of looking after British trading interests, because the most important trading interests, the boot manufacturers, were opposed to the increase. That interest represents at least 100 times more employés than the single patent leather firm that was concerned at that time. The boot interests represents 80 per cent. of the total use of leather of this kind in this country, and they were opposed to the increase. The only reason I heard given was even worse than that which my hon. Friend has stated—that one Canadian firm at Ottawa had made a kind of semi-official bargain with the British interests. It seems extraordinary that one British firm employing fewer than 1,000 workers can override the interests of another industry with more than 100,000 workers; and it seems more extraordinary that this one small firm can bind the British Government to raise the rate from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., even though no arguments have been adduced to show that any advantage accrues to this country. I hope the Minister will give us better and more adequate reasons for this increase than were given on the last occasion.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: We are entitled to a little more explanation of this duty. I should like to support the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade still seems to persist in what I think is a most extraordinary position, namely, that when this application for an increased duty on patent leather—an application made by Canadian interests—came before the Import Duties Advisory Committee it was not rejected. We have heard that the committee heard all the evidence on the subject, and I think it is true to infer from that that they rejected the claim——

Dr. BURGIN: There was no rejection by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. After hearing the evidence, it was found that the matter was beyond their competence.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understand that the letter the Advisory Committee wrote on
the 6th April, 1933, to some of the opponents stated that the committee did not propose to make any recommendations at present in regard to the application for an additional duty on patent leather. There was no suggestion that it was outside their competence. It simply turned the application down "for the present."

Mr. MALLALIEU: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. There was a definite hearing of evidence, and the application was not granted. In ordinary terms, that means that the application was rejected. I submit that the reason was because of Section 3, Subsection (2), of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which lays down plainly when these applications may or may not be rejected or accepted. May I remind the Committee of what that Sub-section says:
In deciding what recommendation, if any, to make for the purposes of this Section, the Committee shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom and the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom.
Of course, having heard the evidence, it was perfectly plain to the Advisory Committee that this was not in the interests of the trade and industry of this country. I am glad to see the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary; I do not think he was saying anything to the contrary. That, in my submission, is a rejection; he says it is not, but we agree what it was in effect. He went on to say that this proposal was to the benefit of Canadian industries, and he pointed out that he hoped we should get some sort of concession in future from Canadian industry. I would like to tell him that in the West Riding of Yorkshire not very much is thought of the hopes which he expressed in that direction. I want him to say what sort of thing he hopes to get as a result of this sacrifice of a certain section of British industry in the interests of Canadian industry. The Committee might legitimately demand some explanation as to what he hopes to get from Canada. Is it the sort of thing that the woollen and worsted trades of the West Riding have recently obtained from the Canadian Tariff Board? If not, what is it?

7.23 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: We are discussing patent leather, and the Committee might
like to know some of the figures relating to it. The imports of patent, varnished, japanned and enamelled leather entering this country from all sources in 1933 amounted approximately to £750,000. In the first three months of 1934 the importation from all sources amounted to £98,000. Of that amount, £64,000 came from Canada. Hon. Members will appreciate that all that comes from Canada comes free of all duty whatever, whatever the rate of duty may be that is imposed on the leather that comes from elsewhere. We are discussing the duty on the remainder, and the additional revenue from the duty, if the Clause to which I am speaking is added to the Bill, will amount to approximately £10,000 in a full year, adding at most one halfpenny per square foot on the price of patent leather—not one halfpenny per pair of shoes but a halfpenny per square foot.

Mr. T. SMITH: When I mentioned the figures, I quoted from one who submitted evidence to the Committee, in which he said the present 10 per cent. duty represented 1½d. to 2½d. per pair of boots.

Dr. BURGIN: I am not in any way discussing the sources of information open to the hon. Member, but the tables that have been prepared for Government purposes, to which I have access, show that the increase in price on patent leather will be unlikely to be as much as one halfpenny per square foot. The question which is really before the Committee is, to use the words of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, whether the Committee have been treated fairly. The issue I have to face is that for some reason the Government, instead of using the ordinary procedure of the Import Duties Act, have adopted the less usual course of putting a Clause in the Finance Bill, and did that, to use the hon. Gentleman's expression, after the Import Duties Advisory Committee had considered the evidence. There is no dispute about the facts, although the Committee may not have the whole of them in their possession. The United Kingdom Tanning Industries and the Canadian Tanning Industries on the 5th July, 1932, made an agreement. The material clause of that agreement stated that:
The United Kingdom had placed a duty of 15 per cent. on foreign leather except patent leather, and, conditional on the continuation
of the present arrangement plus the granting of protection in that market equal to 15 per cent. ad valorem against foreign patent leather the Canadian Tanning Industries have agreed with the United Kingdom leather delegates to recommend that the Canadian Government should reduce the British preferential rate of 15 per cent ad valorem "——

Sir S. CRIPPS: Is the hon. Gentleman reading from the agreement?

Dr. BURGIN: I am reading from a clause in it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask that the agreement be produced and laid on the Table of the House if the hon. Gentleman is quoting from it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sure, if the hon. Gentleman is quoting from an official document, that he will follow the usual practice and lay it on the Table of the House.

Dr. BURGIN: As I intimated, I am not quoting from an official document, but referring to a clause in an agreement dated 5th July, 1932, that was made between the United Kingdom Tanning Industries on the one hand and the Canadian Tanning Industries on the other, and I was giving the Committee the information with regard to this agreement. The whole point of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and of the hon. Members who supported it was that the information with regard to this agreement appears to be a little sketchy. I was endeavouring to comply with the Committee's request for information, and I was pointing out that here was a bargain between two groups of industrialists in an industry in which British industry was very greatly dependent upon the Canadian. I entirely subscribe to what the hon. Member said, that there was very little production of patent leather in this country. I gave the reasons in the previous discussion; it has something to do with the sun and the rapidity of drying the leather, which necessitates a softer climate. The Clause which I was reading stipulated the advantages which the Canadian industry proposed to invite the Canadian Government to give to the British exporter if the British Government gave to the Canadian exporter equivalent advantages. That was a bargain made between these two groups of people.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Can we know what the advantages were?

Dr. BURGIN: I was about to give them when the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me. The advantages were:
to recommend that the Canadian Government should reduce the British preferential rate of 15 per cent. ad valorem to the former British preferential tariff rate under tariff item 604 of 121/2 per cent., which was in effect down to the end of 1st June, 1931; and to recommend that the intermediate and general tariff rate of Canada be increased to 27½ per cent. ad valorem so as to give the United Kingdom leather producers a protective tariff spread in the Canadian market equal to 15 per cent. ad valorem.
I did not make the agreement nor draft it; I am merely giving to the Committee the terms of the material clause. It was an agreement between the two tanning industries, which they thought it worth while to make, and under which there were mutual obligations and mutual advantages. The Canadian Government put their part of the bargain into operation, and the advantages which were sought for by the British tanning industry were granted. By an accident, the British delegates negotiating at the Ottawa Conference were not aware of this discussion between the industries, and so the Ottawa Agreements were concluded without there being inserted in the list of obligations which the British Parliament were to undertake those implementing this agreement made by the British tanning industry. We had, therefore, this position, that an agreement, not binding on either Government, had been implemented by the Canadian Government, providing for a 15 per cent. preference in the Canadian market, and that there was no corresponding provision in British legislation to bring about the suggested preference.
The matter went before the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It appeared to be a matter that came within the competence of that committee, and they listened to the evidence and they wrote the letter which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Gripps) has read. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) rightly said, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are required by Section 3, Sub-section (2) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, when considering what recommendations they are to make, to have regard:
To the advisability in the national interest and to the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom.
If the avowed object of the duties is not the trade interests of the United Kingdom but the interests of the Canadian industry, it is contended that the case falls outside Section 3, Sub-section (2) of the Act, and consequently the Advisory Committee were not able to make a recommendation. Hon. Members are entitled to say that that is argument, that that is a gloss, that it is supposition. I can only give to the Committee the explanation which I believe to be both true and accurate. The Advisory Committee are an independent body. They make recommendations, or they write intimating that they are not doing so. It is open to hon. Members to think that the letter which has been read amounts to a rejection, it is open to them to imagine that the evidence did not satisfy the Committee, but, quite clearly, the facts are equally open to the explanation which I have given, and that is the explanation which the Government have accepted, and is the reason for the Government's action in inserting this Clause in this Bill.
The matter was very carefully considered. The Canadian Government had given a concession under terms which implied that the United Kingdom were to place duties on foreign patent leather, and those duties had not been put on. Although the greatest reluctance was felt, having regard to what had occurred, the conclusion was reached that, in order that there should be no question of our good faith, and with a view to consolidating good commercial relations between the United Kingdom and Canada, the wishes of the Canadian Government, frequently emphasised by representations, should be met. It appeared the more desirable to do this because the Canadian Government have shown themselves increasingly ready to meet our wishes in other matters. The hon. Member for Colne Valley has referred to the interim Textile Report, of which some forecast has been given in the Press. That report has not yet come to hand, and consequently there has been no opportunity of examining it, but I can tell the Committee that the Canadian Government have restored free entry for fine cotton goods, and has extended to linen goods embroidered with cotton the
free entry granted under the Ottawa Agreement respecting linen goods; and, more recently, in the Canadian Budget the most important item was the reduction from 3 per cent. to 1½ per cent., in the case of British goods only, of the excise on the duty-paid value of imported goods.
I do not want to exaggerate these things and on the other hand, I do not want to minimise them, but I want this Committee to know that in the considered opinion of the Government handling this matter the Canadian Government have shown an increasing tendency to help British industry, and that it would be particularly unfortunate if any suggestion, were allowed to gain currency that we were not willing to implement an agreement and a bargain arrived at between groups of manufacturers where it had been put into operation. It has been suggested that we are going behind the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but that is no more the case than with any of the Ottawa duties. The Ottawa duties are outside the purview of that committee. The Ottawa duties were imposed in return for tariff concessions from the Dominions. The remainder of this Clause—though this perhaps is not germane to the Amendment—is to show that this is an Ottawa duty exactly as if it had been dealt with in the general discussions made at the time.
I have given hon. Members a frank, complete and open explanation. Nobody likes the position. It is not pleasant to impose a duty where there is very little horn manufacture to protect. I think the question whether the manufacturer of patent leather at home cannot be considerably increased is worthy of some scientific discussion. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that recently the number of those manufacturing it had increased, although he mentioned quite a small number. However that may be, the facts are as I have stated. We have put this duty into the Finance Bill instead of passing it through the Import Duties Advisory Committee because we believe it to be outside the scope of Section 3, Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1932—we do not believe it is against the "interest of British industry" that this should be done—and it is to implement a matter of Government policy.

7.37 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman has now given us a very much fuller explanation than we had at any earlier period. He now tells us, I think I am right in saying for the first time, that the Canadian Government have been pressing many times for this duty to be put on. Certainly I was not aware of that fact, but that hardly alters the criticism of this Clause. The matter was allowed to be referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, it was heard by them, and they decided that, for the present at any rate, it was not in the national interest or in the interests generally of the trade of the United Kingdom that this duty should be imposed, and therefore they did not impose it. The hon. Gentleman said that this has nothing to do with the interests of the United Kingdom, and that under the Ottawa Agreements duties are imposed merely for the purpose of getting concessions in Canada for other industries.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion on this Amendment has become rather wide, but I think necessarily rather wide, and I want to safeguard myself against a repetition of these arguments on the Question, "The Clause stand part of the Bill." It is obvious that this is rather a difficult matter and I think it would be better to discuss it generally on the Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I agree, except for one or two technical matters which follow on the rest of the Clause. This Clause is apparently designed not to benefit the patent leather industry, but, by reason of an exchange of concessions, to benefit some other industry. That may be all very well where the Government have carefully considered the interests of other industries—for instance, if they had consulted the boot and shoe industry—to see whether this is a proper arrangement, but no such thing has been done here, and that is the great objection of this Clause. Here are two sets of manufacturers—the manufacturers interested in patent leather being one single firm—who go to Canada and enter into an agreement, as part of the British tanning industry, with the Canadian tanning industry, without the representatives of the Government knowing anything at all about it. This British tanning industry is now, apparently, to
be allowed to affect any other industry in this country, without there being any control over it. Once it has entered into the arrangement with the Canadian tanning industry, a pistol is pointed at the head of our Government and they are told, "You have got to comply with this, because we have pledged our word." The Canadian tanners' arrangement, which might happen to be extremely favourable to the Canadian tanners, is implemented and then they turn round and say, "You have got to do your part of the bargain." But it never was our bargain at all, but the bargain of someone in the industry, and I certainly am not prepared to leave bargaining over the tariff interests of this country in the hands of the tanners or any other vested interest. It is bad enough when it is done by a National Government, and we do not want it done by vested interests individually, irrespective of all the other interests in the country. The hon. Gentleman knows from his experience of these tariff bargains that a multitude of interests come into these questions, directly and indirectly, but none of them were considered in this case by the people who made the agreement. The only people who were considered were the tanning interests in the two countries.

Dr. BURGIN: If there were a case in which a pistol was put at the head of the Government and we were obliged to implement an agreement arrived at between two sets of industrialists for reasons which might be beneficial to their own industry or because it would hurt some other industry, such a proceeding would be open to grave objection; but, of course, the examination which the hon. and learned Gentleman said did not take place has been undertaken prior to the decision to insert this Clause in the Finance Bill.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid that really will not help the hon. Gentleman. Having had the pistol presented at his head, he has been able to think out some quite good reasons why he should do what the man with the pistol asks him to do—that is always simple, after the event—but I would much prefer that the hon. Gentleman had decided before whether he would like the pistol to be put to his head. He would have had a much freer judgment as to the whole of the circumstances
of the case, and this method, as he says, is liable to abuse, and at least is a clumsy and inept method, because it leaves out of account the vital interests of, in this case, the whole body of boot and shoe manufacturers. This is not for the benefit of the boot and shoe industry, because we know that the Import Duties Advisory Committee found, after inquiry, that it was not to be for the benefit of the industries of this country. But we are told that it is for the benefit of the industry of Canada, and therefore we have got to do it. I object very strongly to the implementing of this arrangement, to which we have been pledged through the industry, and not through our Government, and we on this side propose, on those grounds, to vote against this Clause.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I want to add one or two arguments to the case which has just been put from this Front Bench, but I do not propose to go over the whole of it in detail. I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in regard to the details which have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade; they certainly have been much more complete than they were on the previous occasion. I have before me the speech which he made, and the general impression which I received was that the proposals which we are now discussing were for the benefit of the Canadian industry. I remember a little bit of discussion which took place between the hon. Member and one of his hon. Friends behind him on the question of what was a quid pro quo. We are now informed that there are certain advantages which accrue. I regret that we have only had the details now. The advantages which are to accrue to this country require very considerable examination, and I should like to have an opportunity of giving that examination.
I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's statement in regard to the argument that the imposition of this duty would increase the cost of shoes made from patent leather. His reply has always been that the increase would be one halfpenny per square foot or one penny per pair. As far as the duties have been applied, it has meant 2½d. and it may mean 3½d. per pair when this heavy imposition is placed upon the purchaser
of shoes in this country. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, not what one halfpenny per square foot would mean, but what it is likely to mean after it has been passed on by the manufacturers to the users. A commendable desire is shown to see our industries flourish, but I do not see how any further advantage will be given to Canada. It has been admitted in the past that a discussion took place between an industry in Canada and a firm in this country. I have been informed how the two firms came into being,;and from the evidence I think that one was a Canadian firm.

Dr. BURGIN: Will the hon. Member allow me to give him one fact? In the first three months of 1934 the value of these imports was £98,000 from all sources, and of that, two-thirds was from Canada; roughly a quarter, or £25,000 of the whole came from the United States, and £7,000 worth or another 7 per cent. came from Germany. The task of supplying the home market with the quantity that we now receive from the United States and Germany offers quite a good scope.

Mr. LEONARD: The Canadian industry has already stated that it can increase its supplies to 19,000,000! square feet, although it is only supplying 6,000,000 square feet. There is not much hope for the home industry, and I do not think that the action which is now being taken will strengthen it to any degree. It may give a further advantage to Canada. I do not see much chance of the hon. Gentleman's opinion on this matter fructifying. The interests which use this commodity have been given representation of a very tangible and detailed character.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) described the process by which this duty has been imposed as levelling a pistol at the head of the Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary rose and refuted that statement; but it was all taken from his own speech, which is very fresh in the minds of the Committee. He said in my hearing that it was not a pleasant thing to impose a duty when there would be no substantial benefit to the industry here, and he went on to say that it had to be done because there was the bargain, the history of which
he had described in some detail. The Canadian Government had implemented it, and we must not be thought not to be doing our part. If that is not putting a pistol to the head of the Government. I do not know what is. It means that the decision has been taken already by somebody else before the Government starts to review the question at all. Afterwards the Government may find reasons. It is perhaps not quite so unpleasant as the Parliamentary Secretary thought, but unpleasant in some way it must certainly be.
I want to ask how far these new sources and causes of tariffs are to go. We have the Import Duties Act, which is checked to some extent by the presence of a statutory body who investigate the benefit of import duties to English industries. There are also the Ottawa Agreements which go beyond that, taking as they do the wider view and considering imperial interests. Now we are to have action which considers neither national nor imperial, but purely sectional, interests. That is the most dangerous thing that we have seen yet. How far is it to be carried? It is open to any group of manufacturers to make an agreement like this, and the agreement may be harmful or corrupt, but, if it suits somebody on the other side to adopt it, the British Government will come to us helplessly and say, "Whatever are we to do? We have to pass this." We ought to know where to stop. We all desire to consider national and imperial interests, but in face of what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary the imperial interest was not a very substantial one. On his own figures, Canada were supplying about two-thirds of the imports into this country and they were doing pretty well out of the previous assistance. I wonder at their temerity for asking for further artificial assistance.
I make my protest against a dangerous practice in a hole-and-corner way. The Government either never knew about it or forgot it at Ottawa, and yet we are asked to bind ourselves by what has been done by a group of sectional interests. If that is to go on, the corrupt effect of tariffs may be worse than have always been imagined by Free Traders.

Question put, "That 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 48.

Division No. 262.]
AYES.
[5.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarke, Frank
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Loeds, W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hales, Harold K.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hartland, George A.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Conant, R. J. E.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cook, Thomas A.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooke, Douglas
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Courtnope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle)
Hepworth, Joseph


Barton, Capt. Basil Keliey
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Ports-n'th, C.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson. Cast. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Blinded, James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Borodale, Viscount
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Bossom, A. C.
Dickie, John P.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Bralthwalte, J. Q. (Hillsborough)
Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J. Campbell


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duncan, Jamas A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dunglass. Lord
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Kimball, Lawrence


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Knight, Holford


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Elmley, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Law, Sir Alfred


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Burnett, John George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fermoy, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fox. Sir Glfford
Levy, Thomas


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lewis, Oswald


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Carver, Major William H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mabane, William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEwen. Captain J. H. F.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Granville, Edgar
McKie, John Hamilton


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Remer, John R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Haltland, Adam
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur u.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Making, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Mariden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswlnford)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Salt, Edward W.
Train, John


Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Tree, Ronald


Morgan, Robert H.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Tufnell, Lieut. Commander R. L.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Munro, Patrick
Scone, Lord
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Selley, Harry R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersfld)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wells, Sidney Richard


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Weymouth, Viscount


Peake, Captain Osbert
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Pearson, William G.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Peat, Charles U.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Percy, Lord Eustace
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Petherick, M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertfd)


Pike, Cecil F.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spens, William Patrick
Womersley, Sir Walter James


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)



Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Strauss, Edward A.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Ray, Sir William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks. W. Riding)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rothschild, James A. de


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Haldsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar. George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
West, F. R.


Dobble, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot. Dingle (Dundee)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 263.]
AYES.
[7.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grimston, R. V.
Rankin, Robert


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Griffen. W. G. Howard
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ray, Sir William


Albery, Irving James
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, w.)
Hales, Harold K.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Remer, John R.


Apsley, Lord
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Hanbury, Cecil
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ross, Ronald D.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
H arbor d, Arthur
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hartland, George A.
Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Balniel, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Salt, Edward W.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hepworth, Joseph
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Blinden, James
Hornby, Frank
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Borodale, Viscount
Horobin, Ian M.
Selley, Harry R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hume. Sir George Hopwood
Shepperson, Sir Ernest w.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Burnett, John George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Soper, Richard


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Kimball, Lawrence
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Carver, Major William H.
Knight, Holford
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Sir Alfred
Spens, William Patrick


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Clarry, Reginald George
Leckle, J. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G (Westmorland)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife. E.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Levy, Thomas
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Colfox. Major William Philip
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lockwood. Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Summersby, Charles H.


Conant, R. J. E.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sutcllffe, Harold


Cook, Thomas A.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cooke, Douglas
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thompson, Sir Luke


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Craven-Ellis, William
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Crooke, J. Smedley
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswlnford)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Train, John


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Martin, Thomas B.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey
Morgan, Robert H.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Elmley, Viscount
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morrison, G- A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Weymouth, Viscount


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moss. Captain H. J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Normand. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Peake, Captain Osbert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fox, Sir Gilford
Pearson, William G.
Wise, Alfred R.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Peat, Charles U.
Withers, Sir John James


Ganzont. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Gillett. Sir George Masterman
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Sir Walter James


Gledhill. Gilbert
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Pike, Cecil F.



Gower, Sir Robert
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Radford, E. A.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Greene, William P. C.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Daggar, George


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Edwards, Charles


Banfield, John William
Cove, William G.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Batey, Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gardner, Benjamin Walter


Bernays, Robert
Curry, A. C.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)




Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William
West, F. R.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wilmot, John


Holdsworth, Herbert
Milner, Major James



Jenkins, Sir William
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next Amendment, in the name af the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones)—in page 5, to leave out lines 6 to 12—I have decided that it would impose a charge. Perhaps, however, the hon. Member's object is to ask a question, and, if that be the case, he can do so on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.3 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: As you rightly observe, Captain Bourne, the purpose of my Amendment is really to elucidate the meaning of this Clause. There are two points which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. In the first portion of Sub-section (1) we are told that a Customs duty is to be imposed upon patent leather, and then there is a proviso which says that it shall not apply to any goods which fall within a certain class or category, that class or category being goods which are provided for in the Import Duties Act. I would like to know what patent leather is in fact taxed with an additional duty under the Import Duties Act. As far as I remember, there is none, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary can throw some light upon that matter for me, I shall be very glad.
The other point is a little more difficult for me even to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. As I understand it, Subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act provides for the imposition of duties in accordance with the Ottawa Agreements. If I have grasped aright the purpose of the proviso to Subsection (2), what is proposed is really to substitute some other method of doing what appears to me to be the same thing. I do not know if I have grasped the point correctly, but, if the Government are in fact proposing a new method for doing the same thing, there ought surely
to be some explanation for it, and I shall be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary can throw some light upon what, I confess, is to me a somewhat abstruse problem

8.6 p.m.

Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now in his place, because I should like to offer an observation or two upon the extraordinary variety of methods of imposing taxation which we have seen hitherto. The first duty with which we dealt was that on arc lamp carbons, and hon. Members consistently pressed for an inquiry into that duty. The Chancellor refused. Indeed, he gave no answer at all, but left it to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply by arguments which no impartial Committee was to have the opportunity of testing. No actual evidence was given, nor were we able to hear what were the opinions of the interested parties.
We passed on to the question of insulin, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted an entirely different attitude. There it was a question of abolishing the duty, and there the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply was, as far as I could understand it, glad to welcome the fact that those who were interested in the manufacture of insulin would be able, if he were taking off the duty to-day, to make application to the Tariff Advisory Committee, and, if that Committee advised that a duty was desirable, he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not resist making an Order. That was the second point of view. It was an occasion on which an inquiry might result in the imposition of a duty, and, therefore, it was welcome. In the first case an inquiry might result in a duty not being imposed, and, therefore, it was not granted.
The present case is an extraordinary one, and, I hope, unique. Here we have another example of all open inquiry being refused. I do not know exactly what
the circumstances were—the Parliamentary Secretary has not explained them—in which the trade interests concerned forgot in some extraordinary way to mention to the Board of Trade that they had ever made this agreement. I cannot conceive of any trade delegation, even if it only represented a small industry like that of patent leather, being so incredibly incompetent as to forget to mention to the Board of Trade or the Treasury She fact that they had made an agreement to which, apparently, they expected the Treasury to give effect by imposing a duty, and that it should have escaped the notice of the Government is really a most remarkable thing. But that does not deter them now, after 18 months or more, from proposing the duty that is provided for in this Clause. I should have thought, after what the Parliamentary Secretary has said as to his reluctance to impose a duty, that he would have taken some opportunity to have an inquiry, even if it were not carried out by the Tariff Advisory Committee. Inquiries are not limited to the Tariff Advisory Committee; the hon. Gentleman, or the President of the Board of Trade, is at perfect liberty to gather together any body he likes to advise him about anything he likes, and I should have thought that in a case of this kind, where he admits that the people principally concerned, namely, the boot and shoe industry, are opposed to the duty, and the people in favour of it are only a tiny trade, he would at least have taken an opportunity of getting independent advice before going so far as to impose what he himself admits is an unwelcome duty.
In spite of all the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the necessity of carrying out the undertaking mutually given by these two interests, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Clause, and I hope that if in future the Chancellor of the Exchequer has occasion in his Budget to impose further duties of which the source and origin remain to some extent wrapped in mystery, he will adopt the method of having some kind of inquiry by some sort of impartial body. It is no good saying that the Tariff Advisory Committee is not competent on this, that or any other occasion to inquire into a duty; there are plenty of other methods of inquiry; and I hope that in
this Finance Bill we have seen the last of tariffs which are imposed without inquiry and which give rise to suspicion which may be right or may be wrong, but which it is a pity should exist in the minds of any Members of the Committee.

8.12 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has asked me to assist him by explaining the dovetailing of some of the parts of Clause 6, and, in particular, to give some explanation as to their meaning and general effect. The main operative part of Clause 6 imposes a duty, not only on patent leather, but on goods composed wholly of patent leather. That is, perhaps, precautionary. It is designed to avoid any question as to the proper amount of duty to be charged on those articles, The duty does not apply to articles which contain patent leather as a component—for instance, a handbag. The proviso, that is to say, lines 6 to 12, is necessary because of Sub-section (4, b) of Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932. Where an Ottawa duty is in force, all additional duties cease to apply. If you are going to make the duty on patent leather an Ottawa duty, it would automatically, under the Ottawa Agreements Act. make other additional duties cease to apply.
In order to prevent that happening, you must say that Sub-section (4, b) of Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act shall not apply to that particular duty. That is so in this case because there is an existing duty higher than 15 per cent. on certain forms of patent leather. The hon. Member asked me to give him one or two examples. Shaped parts for making up into boots and shoes are subject, under an Additional Import Duties Order, to a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem, that is to say, the 10 per cent. general ad valorem duty plus an additional 10 per cent. Without this proviso, the effect of making the 15 per cent. duty under this Clause an Ottawa duty would be to prevent the already existing 20 per cent. duty from applying any longer. Sub-section (2) places the new duty in substantially the same position as those imposed under the Ottawa Agreements Act, and, as the new duty is partly the outcome of the Ottawa Conference, it is desirable that that should be the case, and that preference and drawback and all that sort of thing,
which applies to Ottawa duties, should apply to this duty. The proviso to the second Sub-section says that Section 1 (2) of the Ottawa Agreements Act shall not apply, but that the duty shall lapse if the agreement with Canada lapses. The Subsection of the Ottawa Agreements Act referred to says that the duties chargeable under that Act must be repealed whenever they can be repealed without affecting the Ottawa Agreements. As here we have not an Ottawa Agreement, this duty could be repealed immediately

under the Ottawa Agreements Act. You, therefore, have to adapt the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, because there is no agreement under which this duty is included. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, it is not my fault that I have not trade the position clear.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Commiteee divided; Ayes 206; Noes 49.

Division No. 264.]
AYES.
[8.18 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gledhill, Gilbert
Moss, Captain H. J.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Munro. Patrick


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Albery, Irving James
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Greene, William P. C.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.


Apsley, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Penny, Sir George


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Percy. Lord Eustace


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Petherick, M.


Balllie. Sir Adrian W. M.
Hales, Harold K.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pike, Cecil F.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hanbury, Cecil
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harbord, Arthur
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hartland, George A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rankin, Robert


Belt. Sir Alfred L.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ray, Sir William


Blindell, James
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hepworth, Joseph
Remer, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hornby, Frank
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horobin, Ian M.
Ross, Ronald D.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burnett, John George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Salt, Edward W.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones. Lewis (Swansea, West)
Selley, Harry R.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Kimball, Lawrence
Shaw, Halen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knight, Holford
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Conant, R. J. E.
Law, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)


Cook, Thomas A.
Law, Richard K. (Hall, S. W.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dlne, C.)


Cooke, Douglas
Leckle, J. A.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lees-Jones, John
Somerville, Anneslev A. (Windsor)


Craven-Ellis, William
Levy, Thomas
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Soper, Richard


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, John Hamilton
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Dunglass, Lord
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Elmley. Viscount
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strauss. Edward A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Bullor, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart


Entwistle. Cyril Fullard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Summersby. Charles H.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tate, Mavis Constance


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thompson, Sir Luke


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Ganzonl. Sir John
Morgan, Robert H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Glliett, Sir George Masterman
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Train, John
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Wise, Alfred R.


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wells, Sydney Richard
Withers, Sir John James


Turton, Robert Hugh
Weymouth, Viscount
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Whyte, Jardine Bell



Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williame, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Sir Walter Womersley and Dr.


Wirrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
M liner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Bernays, Robert
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zel'nd)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
West, F. R.


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring. William Henry



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G.




Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 5.—(Repeal of customs duty on insulin.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.46 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have just supported the Government, with very great pleasure, on the last Clause, which amended the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. Therefore, I regret all the more that on Clause 5, which also amends the Safeguarding of Industries Act, I find myself in opposition. To-day I was rejoiced to read that, on the advice of His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada, Dr. Banting, the discoverer of insulin, has been honoured with a knighthood. It seems to me a little in-appropriate
that on the very day that that honour is announced we should be asked to pass a Clause which will have the effect of probably handing over to a foreign monopoly the manufacture of this important drug, if I may so describe it, discovered by this young and distinguished Canadian medical man.
May I remind the Committee, as I did on the previous Amendment, that the object of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was not protection in the ordinary sense but security in time of war; to make certain that there should always be available to our people certain commodities of which during the late War we experienced a great shortage. Here is a new commodity which did not exist, I think I am right in saying, when the Safeguarding
of Industries Act was passed in 1921. Under Part I of that Act a duty of 33⅓ per cent. is imposed on foreign goods in certain categories, and one category was devoted to fine organic chemicals. The list of fine organic chemicals is very numerous and the number is constantly being added to. Accordingly, it was laid down that the Board of Trade should publish a list of the goods covered by that general description in the Schedule to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The original list consisted of some 6,000 fine organic chemical products. As discoveries are made that list is augmented.
Under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1926, which continued those duties for another 10 years, power was given to the Board of Trade, where necessary, to remove an article from the list if it appeared that it was not being produced either in this country or in any part of the British Empire. That was a wise provision because it prevented the continuation of the duty on an article where there was no competitive supply for the time being, which represented in those circumstances a burden without any advantage. There was a provision that as soon as the production began either here or in an Empire country the duty should come back into operation. Insulin did not exist in 1921, and therefore it did not appear in the first list. It did not appear in any list published by the Board of Trade, because they apparently took the view that it was not a fine organic chemical.
There was a provision in the Act of 1921 for the determination of doubtful cases, modified by Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1926, whereby such cases were referred to a panel of scientific advisers. Ultimately, in the autumn of last year, on the application of certain British manufacturers, the question whether insulin was or was not legally within the definition of a fine organic chemical was referred to a panel. The opposition did not come from any British interest but from the representative of a foreign institution, the Nordish Insulin Laboratorum, or their London agent. It was not that there was any British organisation against the inquiry or against the proposal that insulin should be classed as a fine organic chemical and become liable to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. As it had not been treated as such, it
was paying the ordinary duty of 10 per cent. under the Import Duties Act.
The committee came to the conclusion that, legally, insulin was a fine organic chemical and, accordingly, the Board of Trade automatically made an order classing it on 14th December, 1933, as a fine organic chemical. In that matter the Board of Trade was not taking a political decision. They had no option. They were merely carrying out a statutory duty. If their view was that the duty was undesirable I suggest that an announcement to that effect ought to have been made at that time. However, the duty came into operation. For some months before the duty came into operation a very vigorous newspaper campaign was conducted against the duty and denouncing the Government for contemplating it. I was one of those who took some part in an endeavour outside this House to attack the Government. Once or twice on the public platform and several times in the public Press I contributed my views on the subject. I thought that the Press agitation was a rather disgraceful one, because its object was to try to terrify sick people. I do not think that anyone who took part in that agitation has anything of which to be proud. They led the people to believe that if a duty of 33⅓ per cent. came into operation the price of insulin would be raised.
Insulin was first manufactured in this country in 1923, and the initial price per 100 units, which is the way in which it is sold, was 25s. The price fell with very great rapidity, and before last autumn, or up to about 18 months ago, it had fallen to something like 2s. 8d. per 100 units. Up to last autumn two British firms were selling at such a price that the consumer could go to a chemist's shop and buy insulin at 2s. per 100 units. Another British firm sold insulin at 1s. 8d., while the Danish insulin, made by the institution which I have mentioned, was sold at 1s. 5d. So far as sufferers were concerned, if they were getting hospital treatment they got insulin free, and the hospitals were paying 1s. per 100 units. Persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act were getting insulin as a benefit under the Act and it cost them nothing. Therefore a very large proportion of the actual sufferers from diabetes were not
primarily affected by the price. It is interesting to note that the price had fallen very heavily.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Were the hospitals using British or foreign insulin?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand—I speak without full knowledge—that in the main the hospitals were buying British insulin and doing their best to support manufacture in this country, because they realised how important it was that there should be an adequate supply produced in this country. The rise in duty from 10 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. took place on 14th December last. Having taken an active part in the controversy, I occasionally took the opportunity when I was in a chemist's shop to ask if anything had happened with regard to insulin, and I discovered that there was no rise in price, thus bearing out the contention that I had put forward. Insulin is not the only product covered by the Safeguarding of Industries Act. There are a very large number of products bought by the public to-day at a much cheaper rate than in pre-War days when we were dependent solely on German supplies. Therefore, there was some analogy to work upon. The price at which insulin has been selling in this country is much lower than the price in the United States of America, where it is as high as 4s. 9d. There was no evidence, therefore, some weeks after the duty came into operation, that any sufferer in this country had been prejudiced.
There came a time, I forget the exact date, but it was towards the end of January or some time in February, when the two British firms who were selling at 2s. announced a reduction to 1s. 10d., and the other British firms who were selling at 1s. 8d. announced a reduction to 1s. 5d. Therefore, following the imposition of the duty, after about two months, these British firms, after considering the situation and realising that they had a degree of security and protection which they had not enjoyed before, were in a position further to lower the price. The lowest British price quoted by one firm was brought down to the price at which the Danes had been selling prior to the duty. Therefore, the view that I had expressed had been verified and the contention of the newspapers had
been falsified. On 12th February of this year, for the first time, the matter was raised in the House on the Motion for the Adjournment by the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson), who has always been an active Protectionist, but on this occasion was supporting what I might call the Free Trade side. The original decision of the Board of Trade, as I have said, was not a political decision but the carrying out of a statutory duty. When the matter was raised in Debate by my hon. and gallant Friend there was a good deal of inaccuracy in his speech. I do not know whether he is present; I should be sorry to criticise him in his absence. The response on behalf of the Government was made not by the Board of Trade, not by the Exchequer, but by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health who, in pre-crisis days was on the Free Trade side while I was on the Protectionist side. He delivered a most robust defence of the duty, and was criticised by some of his former colleagues for so doing. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) was one of his critics. May I quote what the Parliamentary Secretary said, because I agree with it? He said:
In view of the fact that the Americans cannot produce it at anything like our price, and that it is cheaper here than anywhere except Scandinavia, I cannot see any reason for the apprehension of my hon. and gallant Friend. One can only hope "that the stabilisation of the duty will enable the home producers of insulin to do what other producers have done, and, by a reorganisation of production behind the duty and with an assured market, steadily reduce the price of the commodity. I can only express that hope, but I have the evidence of other commodities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1934; col. 1730, Vol. 285.]
That was a strong statement. He was not sheltering himself behind a mere technicality. He was not saying that because this thing came into operation by a chance and because of the way in which the law had been prepared, he was going to repudiate it. Kb. He quite properly took up the view that even if this might have come into operation by chance, nevertheless it was a good thing, a justifiable thing and, speaking not as a private individual but as a Minister of the Crown responsible for the health of the people of this country, he defended the duty. That made it all the more surprising to me that when this Finance
Bill was published, without any intimation, we suddenly discovered a Clause wiping out something which started on 14th December last, and was robustly defended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on 12th February. Yet without one word of warning, it is to be wiped out. That is not going to be of any good to sufferers from diabetes in this country.
The Danish institution, which at the moment is under-cutting every other producer in the world, is a rather unusual institution. It was created, apparently, by some act of the Danish Government, and is a semi-official institution. It does not trade with a view to making a profit in the general sense, and it has the supreme advantage that it pays no Income Tax. Apparently, it is staffed by people who are paid from other sources. This Danish institution, although not directly subsidised, appears to enjoy certain financial advantages which place it in a more favourable position than institutions in this country engaged in the production of insulin. In addition, insulin, although discovered by experiments on sheep, experiments dealing with the pancreas of the sheep, is to-day mainly made from the sweetbread of the pig, and on account of the large bacon industry in Denmark the Danes have at their disposal very large supplies of pig sweetbreads from which insulin is prepared. In this country we are hoping, and I think with some justification, to see a larger bacon production and, therefore, there will be available for our own people much larger supplies of the raw material from which insulin is prepared. The chances, therefore, are that circumstances in this country are going to be more favourable.
I am not hopeful of success in opposing this Clause. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to call to his aid all the hon. Members opposite and also hon. Members on the second bench below the Gangway, where the Government will have almost super-national support. But that does not alter the fact that a Clause if this kind ought not to go through without debate or without an adequate statement on behalf of the Government as to why they have suddenly changed their policy. I spoke briefly on 12th February, after the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health had spoken, and I found myself
supporting the policy of the Government. That is not long ago. I am supporting the same policy now, but I find myself opposing the policy of the Government. I find it a little difficult to change my direction with such rapidity. This is what I am really concerned about. Let me assume that the Clause comes into operation and that the 33⅓ per cent. duty vanishes, as will also vanish the 10 per cent. duty, because insulin is placed on the Free List under the Import Duties Act. That will not debar the industry from making an application to the Import Duties Act. That will not debar the industry from making an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee if they wish to do so in the future. Therefore, this matter may come before the House of Commons again. Personally, I hope they will be able to establish a case.
But let me assume that for political considerations—and we are dealing with political considerations—that the duty is not restored, and also that supplies from Denmark are cut off. The Safeguarding of Industries Act was passed on the regretable assumption that circumstances may conceivably arise in which we shall be involved in war. We hope they never will arise, but they might, and, therefore, what is going to be the position of the diabetic people in this country—100,000 of them—if the industry in this country has been destroyed and their supplies from abroad cut off? The spectacle of 100,000 people slowly dying from excess of sugar because the one thing to prevent it has been taken away from them IS a position which, I say, is too terrible to contemplate. But that is the position we must contemplate, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote their minds to it. What security are we going to give to these people if a war should cut off those remedies essential for their existence? It is an essential element in the national defence. It may be that they are afraid there is going to be profiteering. I know that the Danish institution have made a further cut, a propaganda cut, in order to enlist support for the Clause, but if for some reasons which cannot be overcome the cost of production is higher in this country than in Denmark, instead of risking the possibility of destroying the industry it is
surely wiser to make some other provision. It is not a difficult matter to do. It is horrible to contemplate an industry in this country being destroyed and 100,000 diabetic people, a number which, I regret to say, is increasing as a result of the changing habits of civilised people, being placed in a position of extreme peril. It is because I hold these views that I take up a position of opposition to the Clause.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am not concerned at all with the technicalities of this matter, nor am I in any way convinced or moved by the last remarks of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I can see no reason why the English industry should not develop without this protection, or why it should not produce insulin at the same price as the Danish institution. I took part in the Debate of 12th February, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health replied for the Government. When I saw this Clause in the Finance Bill I was agreeably surprised. I am not at all concerned as to why the Government have changed their mind; I am grateful that they have done so. This is not a subject which can be treated purely as a commercial proposition. The reason I took part in the Debate on lath February was because I had received letters from doctors and from people suffering from this dreadful disease, and I took the line then which I take now, that anything which will deprive a sufferer at the cheapest possible price, of something which has proved itself to be probably the only real cure and remedy, I must oppose with all my power.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member tell me whether any of his correspondents told him that they had had to pay more?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: They did; but I am coming to that point in a moment. The hon. Member is always saying that the price has not risen. What price? That is the whole question. Some English manufacturers were producing insulin at 1s. 8d. and some at 2s. I am not suggesting that there has been an increase in the price of 1s. 8d. or 2s., but I do suggest that the sufferer from diabetes, when the duty was on, had to pay 3d.
more; those are the words of the hon. Member himself. He said that the price of Danish insulin was 1s. 5d. and that the English price was 1s. 8d. and 2s., and he went on to say that because of the duty no one had had to pay an increase of the English price.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Nor of the Danish.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: But the fact remains that the person who was purchasing Danish insulin at 1s. 5d. was thrown on to the English price of 1s. 8d. or 2s.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Danish product continued to be imported and those who wished to buy it were able to buy it still at 1s. 5d. No price of insulin was raised by anybody.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The Danish people, in order to meet the duty, pulled down their price, but the purpose was to put it up to the English price. In that case, where is the protection to the English producer? The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He then said that the English price came down to 1s. 5d. and also told us that the hospitals of this country were purchasing insulin at 1s. per 100 units of British make. If those who make it in England can supply hospitals at 1s. per 100 units why cannot they provide the individual sufferer with it at the same price? The hon. Member for South Croydon told us that there were 100,000 persons in this country suffering from this disease, and that the number was increasing. It is perfectly fair to say, therefore, that there is a likelihood of there being an increased demand for insulin which should enable it to be produced at a cheaper price. The hon. Member also said that with a development of the bacon industry the raw material for insulin would be much more available. Therefore, I can see no grounds whatever for a retention of the duty.
I know that in several cases the foreign producer has pulled down his price in order to meet the duty that has been levied, and very often the English producer has pulled down his price in order to meet the competition. What has always puzzled me is why the price could not have been pulled down before. The hon. Member for South Croydon said that he has stuck to his position. I agree, he has; but I want to compliment the
Government sincerely and honestly on this Clause. I know that the hon. Member is a sincere believer in Protection, but I would suggest that there is something far beyond a question of Protection in this matter of insulin, and that this Committee should try to give sufferers from this dread disease every opportunity of procuring the remedy at the cheapest possible rate. I am prepared to wait for the day when this country does go to war. I believe we shall find a means of meeting the demands of these sufferers should such a calamity befall us, and if the British industry sets about its business in a proper way, I can see no reason why they should not produce insulin at the same price as the Danish institution.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: Perhaps I have a right to say something on this question, because in 1920 I was sent to Montreal to represent the Trade Union Congress at a conference of the American Federation of Labour, and was taken ill on the voyage; and when I landed in Montreal I was sent to the Royal Victoria Hospital, and much to my surprise I was informed by the examining surgeon that I was a diabetic, suffering from sugar diabetes. Up to then I thought I had been suffering from other kinds of infirmities. I was in the hospital for seven weeks. I came home six stone lighter than when I went out to Canada, and the suit of clothes I had prepared fox the purpose of showing myself off in Canada—we all try to swank when we go abroad—would make two suits of clothes for me when I came back. My wife did not know me. She met me at the Liverpool landing stage. When I slapped her on the back and asked, "How are you, Kate?" she replied, "It is not you, Jack." I answered, "I hope it is." I was, of course, suffering from the first spasms of the disease. The doctors told me that the first thing I had to do was to get to London and to consult a specialist. I could not consult a specialist, because it takes £5 to open a specialist's mouth and about £10 to close it. Instead of doing that I consulted my union. It said: "We will see to you. Go up and see a specialist on this particular disease and we will do what we can to help you."
I went to see a doctor in Portland Place, and after examining everything he told me. "You will have to be very careful. You had better leave off this and leave off that, and live on this and live on that." I replied, "Doctor, I would sooner be dead than carry out your instructions." I broke every rule that he laid down for me. He gave me a long list of things that I ought to eat and ought not to eat, and what I ought to drink and ought not to drink, and I am still alive. Right opposite the hospital in Montreal where I had been were the two doctors who discovered the value of insulin. I ask hon. Members who oppose this Clause in the Bill, "Are you prepared to defend a system which would make it difficult for poor people to get a cure; do you want to compel the poor to pay a higher price for the insulin?" I have had this treatment, the injection, A patient has to go every day or twice or three times a week, to a doctor to get the injections. How can the ordinary worker pay a doctor twice or three times a week to have the insulin injected into his blood? Hon. Members have talked about buying insulin in bottles. The ordinary man might buy it in a bottle, but he would kill himself very likely before he had learned how to administer the stuff properly. It is not merely a question of buying the stuff, but the administration of it that is important.
Anything that stands in the way of sufferers getting the insulin or the treatment cheaply ought to be abolished. Consequently we are supporting the policy of the Government in this connection. We say that medicinal treatment, from wherever it comes, if it is good, should be welcomed. I do not care whether it is German medicine or any other kind of medicine. If it is good for the people, it ought to be allowed to come in free. I happen to be an illustration, though perhaps not a good one, of the result of treatment for the disease. The more sugar I have the better I like it, and I get it in various forms. I would sooner the with the medicine I like than with the medicine I do not like. I want to see everyone who wants this medicine able to get it. Diabetes to me has been a revelation. I never knew I was so healthy until I had it. I have lived 13 years longer than the doctor said I would live. They gave me six years to live
and it is now nearly 14 years since I was first told that I was a victim of the disease. I am 14 years older and I think I am 14 years younger, and I am going to carry on.

6.23 p.m.

Dr. HOWITT: I should be very sorry to see the insulin trade in this country deprived of the protection which it has enjoyed during the last few months. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has stated clearly the history of what has been happening, but there are one or two things from the medical point of view that I would like to bring forward. I do not know whether Members of the Committee are aware of it, but this country to-day produces a finer and purer insulin than any other country in the world. Our rivals are the Danes. It was our chemists here who generously taught the Danes how to manufacture insulin as we know it. Little did they think that the tables would be turned on them, as they will be turned if this protection is removed. If people say that insulin will be cheaper if the protection is removed, they are wrong. While protection has been operating the insulin has steadily become cheaper and cheaper.
We run a great risk to-day because Denmark is able to produce insulin more cheaply than we are, partly because of the subsidised nature of the manufacture, partly because of the ease with which the pancreas can be obtained, and partly because of its cheapness in Denmark. It has been suggested that if there were a very big pig production here we would perhaps be able to get the pancreas as cheaply as the Danes, but it takes a long time to cure a habit in the people, and as our people have long been in the habit of eating Danish bacon it will take a long time to turn to the home-produced article instead. While we are getting rid of that bad habit of eating Danish bacon we shall be getting into another bad habit, and that will be the habit of instilling Danish insulin into our people. Once we get the habit of using the Danish variety of insulin it will be extremely hard to get rid of the habit. In the hospital with which I have connection no insulin except British insulin is used. That is not entirely for patriotic reasons. It is not because the doctors insist on using British insulin, but "because they say it is the
best. That is a very interesting fact. Other kinds have been tried, and of course the hospital authorities wish to use the cheapest insulin they can get as long as the doctors are satisfied that it is as good, but none is as good as the British.
Since the Finance Bill has been published there has been great activity amongst the Danish emissaries in this country. The danger we run is that it would pay Denmark to sell her insulin at a loss over a period if the Danes could succeed in closing down our chemical works here. In this country there are three firms which produce insulin. I am informed by the chemists here that insulin is sold to-day at 9½d. and that they cannot produce it at a less price. Since we had the benefit of this protection not only have we got a market here, but there has been an increase in our exports. British insulin is becoming world famous, but if we have to produce it at a loss and the industry is not subsidised, it is obvious that the manufacturers will have to shut down. There are two difficulties ahead. If the manufacturers have to shut down there will be, first, the difficulty of again training people to turn out this very complicated product. There will be, secondly, the great difficulty of changing bad habits, for once the hospitals of this country have got used to Danish insulin it will be very difficult to get them to change to the insulin produced in this country. We have been told about the working man having to pay for insulin. Is that true? Does not the workman who is insured get his insulin free through the panel system of the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not all workers!"] Not all workers, but the majority. The case which has been brought up was the case of the man who was working.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: The hon. Member must remember the very large numbers of unemployed workmen who, because they have been unemployed so long, do not get medical treatment.

Dr. HOWITT: They get treatment from the hospitals, I presume. It may seem inconsistent to put on a duty, then take it off and then put it on again, but there is sometimes virtue in a certain amount of inconsistency. In any case, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to allow this protection to remain, I hope he will appreciate the great part which the chemists of this country have
played in the past, and will now encourage them to apply, before it is too late, to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to see that this trade, which is so essential to us, shall be preserved. I am fearful that if there is no protection there will be an enormous increase in the amount of Danish insulin used in this country. As I have said, it is not, in my opinion, as good as the British insulin. I also think, that if we can produce the best in the world at the same price as the foreign product English people would prefer to use the British article.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I hope that in defence of this Clause, the Government will be able to present a better case than that which was given to the House by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), whose defence consisted of a repetition of unfounded and unjustified assertions. I deplore any tendency to introduce in this Debate questions of Free Trade or Protection as principles. I think the object of all Members is the same, namely, to secure to those who suffer from this disease the best and cheapest possible supply of this vital drug. The point on which we differ from all those who have spoken in favour of the Clause so far, and on which we seek enlightenment and explanation from the Government is that we do not believe that that object can be achieved by the removal of the duty. I do not wish to cover again the ground already so ably traversed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). He has given the Committee a history of this insulin trade and of insulin prices under the operation of the duty. The fact remains that, so far from the price having risen as was supposed, it has actually fallen, there has always been a supply of foreign insulin, at the same price, for those who choose to buy it and there is no reason whatever why any person in this country, under the operation of the duty, should have to pay one farthing more for insulin.
I wish in this connection to advert to one argument and one question submitted by the hon. Member for South Bradford. He said, and we agree that insulin was sold to the consumer at 1s. 5d., but we are told that hospitals were purchasing it at one shilling and the hon. Member
asked why could it not be sold everywhere at the same price? The answer is that one price was the wholesale price and the other was the retail price and, as the hon. Member knows, between those two, there is always a great gulf fixed. The hon. Member also put forward this peculiar query. Why was it, he asked, that when there was a duty and when foreign manufacturers reduced their prices, the British manufacturers frequently followed suit? Why should they not, he asked, give the lead? This is the answer and herein, in our view, lies the virtue of the duty. They can only do it in so far as they have a guaranteed market. We contend that the value of a duty is that it gives manufacturers in this country a secured market which would encourage them to go on manufacturing the drug, and they could still sell it at a price, not higher than that of the foreign manufacturers and of a quality superior to that of the foreign manufactured article.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: If the hon. Member's assertion is correct, that the English product can be sold at the same price as the foreign product and of a quality superior to the foreign product, why should the English manufacturer have any fear as to his market? I have always found in my business that if I could sell a thing as cheaply as my competitors and of a superior quality, there was never any question of making a sale.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. Member has failed to follow the point of my argument. The British manufacturer, we contend, can only produce the article as cheaply as the foreigner if he has a guaranteed market secured to him by the duty, and once the guaranteed market is removed, his price has to go up because he is not certain of his turnover. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is our contention, and, in spite of the "noises off" indulged in by hon. Members opposite, I venture to suggest that that is the fact. One other point to which I would allude concerns the question of the desirability and, as we submit, the necessity of having a working insulin industry in this country. Both the hon. Member for South Bradford and my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon in their remarks, only contemplated a shortage of insulin in the case of war. I suggest that the thing goes much deeper than that, I hope, remote
eventuality, and that it is not sound policy to have a commodity of this sort in the hands of a foreign monopoly. Suppose that the Danish producers by selling below cost price were able to capture the English market and make it their monopoly, they would be able to raise the price on the English consumers to their heart's content.
Further, it is undesirable that a commodity of this sort should in any circumstances be used as a bargaining weapon in negotiations between nations, and there is the possibility, if we allowed this commodity to become a foreign monopoly, that it might be so used. I have sufficient confidence in His Majesty's Government to hope that all these points have been taken into consideration by them, that they will be able to assure us that if this Clause is passed the British industry will not be endangered and that they will be able to give us some greater reason for that belief than the somewhat vague aspirations of the hon. Member for South Bradford. I hope very much that they will bear in mind the facts which have been mentioned in this Debate and that they will not, as a result of an ill-informed and not too scrupulous newspaper campaign, be led into leaving the sick—for whom the opponents of the Clause feel just as much as hon. Members opposite—at the mercy of foreign monopolies who might, I fear, be less scrupulous in their treatment of those in need of the drug than our own people.

6.40 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It is evident from the speeches in this discussion that it is extremely difficult to separate this matter from the general question of Protection and Free Trade. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) that it is desirable to do so, although I am not certain that he was completely successful in his endeavour to carry out his own maxim. It is important, however, as this Clause has been debated, that I should make clear what its history has been. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who is always, I am glad to say, anxious to support the policy of the Government, has not on this occasion been quite certain of what that policy is, and it would be very awkward if in our endeavours to support
the policy of the Government we were to support something which was not their policy at all, owing to a mistaken impression. If the history of this question be examined, it will be seen that the imposition of the 33⅓ per cent. duty upon imported insulin under the Safeguarding of Industries Act was a kind of accident. It was never intended by the Government at all. Insulin was not picked out by the Government as an article of such importance in war-time that it must be safeguarded.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It did not exist then.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It did not exist then, but it existed at the time when the list was published by the Board of Trade of articles which they regarded as coming within the designation of fine chemicals. What happened was that that list of articles comprised within the term "fine chemicals" was published and the Board of Trade did not include insulin. Their omission to do so was challenged by the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers. The Board of Trade took up the challenge. They opposed the inclusion of insulin in the list and, therefore, they opposed the imposition of the duty of 33⅓ per cent. upon imported insulin. Under the procedure which has been described, the matter was taken before a tribunal, and the tribunal decided that insulin must be included in the list of fine chemicals. But what was the purpose of the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers in taking this question of insulin to the tribunal? It was not that they were particularly interested in insulin itself. It was that they were anxious to establish what they considered to be an important principle to them, namely, that certain biological and glandular products should be defined as "fine chemicals." Having obtained the establishment of that principle, which they did by the decision of the tribunal, they were not particularly interested in the question of insulin which is not, from their point of view, of very great importance.
That being so, it will be seen that the imposition of the duty which is to be repealed by this Clause, was not, on the one hand, part of a deliberate policy of the Government to include insulin among the products which came under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, nor, on the other hand, was it the result of examination
by the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to whether insulin was a product which ought to be protected in the interests of the manufacturers in this country. It can only, I think, be described as a sort of accident which arose out of the attempt by the British Association of Chemical Manufacturers to establish their principle. Having received the decision of the tribunal, the Board of Trade had no option in the matter. They were obliged at once to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and automatically then insulin ceased to be liable to the original ad valorem duty of 10 per cent., which had been placed upon it before the safeguarding duty was imposed.
I do not want to suggest that this Clause is introduced into the Bill because of any improper behaviour on the part of the chemical manufacturers of this country. There is no suggestion in any quarter, I think, that they have actually exploited the situation or, indeed, that the consumer has not in fact had the benefit of successive reductions in price, in spite of the duty. That is true, and I think it is very much to the credit, if I may venture to say so, of the British manufacturers that not only have they continuously reduced the price of insulin, but that they have also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt) said, succeeded in producing insulin of a quality which has established a special reputation, not only in this country, but in other countries as well, and which incidentally has enabled them to get a price for that specially pure article.
Why then do we repeal this duty? I must admit that I am personally responsible for the initiative in this matter. I have had representations made to me on the subject from the country, from various quarters, to the effect that diabetics felt that the price of insulin was higher than it otherwise would have been in consequence of this duty, which, as I have said, had been accidentally imposed upon it. I made inquiries when these representations were made to me, because I felt that the case of insulin and the case of the diabetics was quite different from the ordinary case of the person suffering from a disease for which there is a remedy and which can be cured and after cure requires no further supply of that remedy. As everybody knows, the case of diabetes is a case of a deficiency which has to be
supplied, and supplied continuously throughout life, by this particular drug, which is the discovery of the celebrated doctor who has been honoured in the list published to-day.
I think one hon. Member said there were 100,000 of these sufferers. My information is that there are very considerably more than that, but it does not matter whether the number be 100,000, 200,000, or 300,000. At any rate, to these people insulin is a matter of life and death, and even if they thought, mistakenly if you like, that they were in a position where they had to pay more than they ought to pay, or more than it was necessary that they should pay, for this necessity to them by reason of a duty put on by the Government, I think they would have a just cause for complaint. As a matter of fact, since the announcement that the duty was to be repealed, there has been a further reduction in the price of insulin, and that leads directly to the benefit of the diabetics.
What then is the reason why we should keep the duty on? I have shown that it is not because we consider this is a matter of policy. The only reason that I can think of is the reason which I understand is adduced by those who have been criticising this Clause, namely, that once you take away the protection which is now given to the British manufacturer, he will lose his home market, he will thereupon gradually be driven out of the business, we shall be left at the mercy of the foreign manufacturer or importer, and then the price may go up, and the diabetics' last state may be worse than the first.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I appear to have correctly described the argument. Let us assume that that is true. The first effect is the reduction in the price, the next effect, according to the argument, is the gradual disappearance of the British manufacturer, and the third and last is the putting up of the price of the drug.

Mr. WILLIAMS: And the cessation of supplies during war.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not discuss war time just yet. I think the other is perhaps the more general argument. Observe what the effect of the
repeal of the duty will be. It immediately frees the manufacturer and allows him to make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for the imposition of a new duty, not necessarily the present duty, but an ad valorem duty and an additional duty if the Import Duties Advisory Committee think that that is desirable. Then there will be an inquiry into the facts of the case, it will be investigated as to whether it really is the case that the interests of the diabetics themselves are threatened, and if the Import Duties Advisory Committee came to the conclusion that they were, I imagine that they would make a recommendation accordingly. Certainly I may say at once that the Government would not contemplate with equanimity a situation such as that which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend, and if the recommendation were made to them, supported by the evidence, that the process was actually taking place, I do not imagine that the Treasury would have any hesitation in making an Order which would put on the appropriate rate of duty.
I say this in conclusion, first of all, that the actual duty which is now in existence has not been put on in consequence either of an examination into the case or because it was a deliberate part of the policy of the Government, secondly, that other things being equal, I think one should try to remove from the minds of diabetics the fear that they are being made to pay more than they need do for what is an essential of life to them, and in the third place the position is now left, if the Clause is passed, so that it is always possible for the manufacturers to make an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and the procedure will be gone through with which the Committee is already so familiar.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: On this side we wish to tender our appreciation of the Government's action in this matter, and we do so unreservedly. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was, quite right in his anticipation that we should be congratulating the Minister on this Clause. We should have done so readily, without hearing the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we find no occasion to dissent from a single Word that he has said, and we are very
anxious indeed that the Committee should wholeheartedly approve of the Clause. The hon. Member for South Croydon is too technical, as he has been to-night, and in taking this opportunity to review the history of this matter, he has given the Committee information no doubt, but he has removed himself and all those who agree with him away from the realities of this very urgent question. There are Members of this House who are themselves victims of diabetes, and who could say from their own experience what a great blessing this great discovery has been to them. We hold the view very definitely that the lowering of the price of insulin has conferred more benefits, medically, upon the masses of the people of this country than any other thing that has happened in recent years. The figures have been given. There are anything from 200,000 to 300,000 victims of this disease, rich and poor, all manner of men, all equal in suffering and all equal before the onslaught of this disease.
Particularly is this concession to be welcomed because it brings equality of opportunity for relief. The cheaper the price of insulin, the more widespread are its advantages and the greater the universal advantage which is derived from it. We welcome this concession, and we hope that it is an instalment of larger measures which are to follow, by which pain and suffering will be relieved as freely and as promptly as medical science permits. Circumstances, position, means should not stand in this matter. It is a question of humanity, not of the trade interests of which we have heard tonight. We deplore very much having heard to-night the consideration of trade interests in regard to this vital matter.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: From whom have we heard of trade interests?

Mr. GRENFELL: I have heard three speeches where trade interests have been stressed.

Mr. BEAUMONT: No.

Mr. GRENFELL: That is the construction that I put upon them. Other hon. Members can put their own construction upon them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was not a drug in the ordinary way, and certainly not an object of profit making. One hon. Gentleman said that this was more a food, a daily food necessity
for the people of this country, and we regret very much to hear that 200,000 or 300,000 people who are victims of diabetes and who are in daily need of this necessity should be deprived of it because of any artificial interference with the cheapening tendencies which we welcome so much in these days. This Committee does not know what insulin costs. The hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt) said that it is the hospitals which provide insulin. If a hospital does provide it in some cases, it does not in all cases. I know a very large number of people who inject two or three times a day into their own blood-stream from 50 or 60 to 100 units a day, an enormous quantity.
The hon. Member for South Croydon, who does not want to listen to anything except his own voice, must remember—he himself gave figures and said that 100 units cost 1s. 8d. or 2s.—that to working people in this country who have to use 50, 60, and up to a daily dosage of 100 units, that is an expense of 1s. 6d. to 2s. a day in extreme cases, and there are very large numbers of working people who have to provide for an expense of 5s., 6s. and Vs. a week in this way. It is a matter of vital importance to these people. There are people who have written to me, whom I have not known, but whose acquaintance I have made because I asked questions in this House of the Minister of Health some months ago on this very important matter, and, having received that correspondence, I feel it my duty to stand up here for the most generous provision of insulin possible. I welcome this Clause with its very valuable concession. It is not a thing written in large figures, but it is a thing written large in terms of relief of pain and suffering. For that reason, we welcome the concession and thank the tight hon. Gentleman for it.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Before we pass from this subject, I wish to protest most emphatically against the absolutely unfounded suggestion of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) that this matter is affected by trade interests. As far as I am concerned, I have no connection with that or any other trade. I may be liable to error, as the hon. Member opposite is, but my view is advanced from the same motives as his own, because I believe it is in the interests of the
diabetics. I may be wrong, and I may be right, but I emphatically protest at any suggestion that anything other than the pure interests of the diabetics were underlying my intervention.

7.0 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think the hon. Gentleman probably misunderstood the way in which my hon. Friend used the term "trade interest." The point is that the hon. Gentleman and his friends consider that a necessary product of this kind should not be profit-earning through a trade interest. We believe that articles as essential as insulin should be produced by the State, as apparently the Danes are producing it through some semi-State institution which does not run on a profit-earning basis, and which is, therefore, able to provide it at a cheaper rate. There is no need why, if people need it, they should not all have a cheap supply of it, but that cannot be done by trade interests; it can only be done under a proper system of Socialist distribution. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) is nodding his head at me. May I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what was the most magnificent Free Trade speech I have ever heard, showing that essential food commodities must not be taxed on coming into the country.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: Does it not follow that anybody who does not agree with that theory of economics is to be accused of defending trade interests?

Sir S. CRIPPS: It is not a question of defending trade interests. It is a question of approaching, the problem from a point of view; that is, the policy of making a profit out of supply and demand.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I think the hon. and learned Member was a little unwise to answer somebody else's question for him and then to proceed to explain the interpretation he put upon it. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) put on trade interests an ordinary interpretation and not the extraordinary one expounded by the hon. and learned Member. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not think that this is necessarily a closed matter. He has indicated that he will
not resist a reimposition of the duty, a very important declaration. Obviously, the position is a changeable one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said quite clearly that, if the Import Duties Advisory Committee, after taking all factors into account as they would, made a recommendation, the Treasury would not hesitate to make an Order. Reimposition of the duty is not ruled out. Whether it will come about depends on circumstances. That takes away from us all necessity of registering our protest by voting in the Lobby. I am not one who hesitates to support my views with my vote when necessary. It does seem to me, however, a clumsy way to do this. If the Government did not desire the report of the inquiry that has been made, if this interest had made an application under the Import Duties Act to which they were entitled, we could have avoided the report, putting the duty on, taking it off, and putting it on again.

Clause 7 (Amendments as to drawback of duties under 22 and 23 Geo 5. c. 8) and 8 (Amendment as to relief of certain machinery from duties under 22 and 23 Geo. 5. c. 8) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Exemption of certain goods used in shipbuilding from duties under 22 and 23 Geo. 5. c. 8.)

8.24 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, to leave out "specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."
I hope I shall not be considered ungrateful in moving this Amendment. I appreciate that the Government are conscious of the serious position of the shipbuilding trade. There are certain industries, like that with which the Minister for Mines is so ably associated, which have been going through a very-bad and distressing time, but it is not unfair to say that shipbuilding, and British shipbuilding in particular, has felt perhaps as much as any industry the full blast of the world economic depression. Many of the shipbuilding areas are almost wiped out. It is only by the most careful co-ordination of interests, the cutting down of some yards, and the amalgamation and merging of various companies, that the industry is kept solvent. I realise that no doubt it is due to the influence of the President of the Board of Trade, for no one is better able to speak for the shipbuilding industry. In the various tariff duties special consideration has been given to the ship-building
industry. Under the original Act of 1932 shipyards had certain privileges in regard to import duties which did not apply to other industries. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt as a concession, is arranging that the importation of goods of any class or description specified in the Second Schedule shall be exempted if the Commissioners are satisfied that the goods are being imported for use in the construction or repair of the boilers or propelling machinery of ships.
I turn to the Schedule and find a comparatively small list of goods, and I suggest that, as long as the Commissioners have discretion, it does not seem wise to limit it to these particular articles. If it is practicable in the construction of boilers and propelling machinery for ships to exempt articles from duty, the list should be as complete as possible, and should include everything the Commissioners find they can provide. That certainly applies in the original Act. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to Section 11 he will see that there is no limitation of the character now suggested. In that case it is limited to goods consigned to shipbuilding yards. I particularly press the point now, because when I turn to the trade returns for April, 1934, I find that the figures are most alarming and certainly indicate the necessity for drastic action if the shipbuilding industry is to be saved and put on its legs again. I find that in the first four months of 1931, which was not a
good year, the exports coming under the category of ships or vessels amounted to £1,800,000. In 1932 it had gone down to £1,276,000 in the first four months, and for the same period this year it had gone down to the small figure of £602,000. The volume of business has been decreased owing to quotas, restrictions, tariffs, and all the unnatural hindrances to trade. The carrying trade of the world has been reduced, and naturally owners of ships are not inclined to give orders for the production of new ships. Therefore, with the severe competition for the limited tonnage required, prices are an essential factor. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his small concession, and I suggest that he should make the concession complete so as to include all articles required for the construction of ships.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I do not say it is a coincidence that at this moment there should be a case for the Government giving further subsidies to shipping. Although there has been a tremendous world cause for the present condition of shipbuilding and the shipping industry, our own Government have very materially contributed to that position by having cut down the external trade of this country, not only by their tariff measures, but also by their sugar-beet industry proposals.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member had better confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I am giving the reason for this Amendment being exceedingly apt in; view of what had gone before. The Amendment brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is singularly apt at the moment when the shipbuilding industry is in such a dreadful condition. Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, as he said, gave the Tariff Commissioners power—it was merely permissive—to exempt imports going to registered shipyards. The proposal in the Finance Bill of this year is to make it obligatory to exempt from duty certain classes of goods used in shipbuilding. There does not seem to be any sufficient reason for leaving the provision where it is now proposed to leave it. What makes the Government propose
that the goods enumerated in the Second Schedule of the Bill only should be exempted The Committee will be indebted to whatever Member of the Government replies, if he will say why these goods only are included in the Schedule, and why all goods necessary for the building of ships are not included. I do not profess to know all the details of the matter, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade does, and will be able to give a useful explanation. In the meantime I suggest that the words should be left out, and that the provision which is applied to certain articles only in the Schedule should be applied to all articles necessary for the building of ships.

8.33 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: When countries build tariff systems round them there is, as a rule, some special care taken with regard to items necessary in the building and construction of ships, and if those who are interested will look at the tariff walls of the United States of America, of Germany and of other countries they will find that when a tariff wall is put round a country, very tender regard is paid to items necessary for the construction of a ship. Consequently, when the Import Duties Act, 1932, was brought before this House, Section 11 was inserted with a view to favouring the very old established British superiority in shipbuilding, and to see that articles essential for shipbuilding consigned to registered shipyards should be able to come in free from the duties which Parliament was asked to impose. It was thought that the task could be achieved by registering shipyards, that is to say, by registering the premises. It is very difficult when an article is brought into this country in one form and undergoes many processes, and is subsequently found in a ship, to know whether it is an article imported for the purpose of shipbuilding or one which will find itself ultimately in a ship. The way to assist the Commissioners of Customs and Excise who have to operate the Act when a particular consignment arrived, is to say there shall be shipbuilding yards which shall be registered, and goods consigned direct to those yards shall be exempted by the commissioners. In some shipbuilding yards not only do they build a ship and make its hull, but they also build the propelling machinery. In those cases
where the propelling machinery works happens geographically to be within the curtelage of the shipyard, it followed that everything required by the makers of the ship-propelling machinery came in dutyfree. If, however, entirely as a matter of geography, instead of having the marine engine works within the curtelage of the registered shipyards they were across the street, then the goods could not be imported duty-free, because they were not consigned to a registered shipbuilding yard. Therefore, the position of the marine engine works differed according to the amount of land available on the sides of the rivers and estuaries where shipbuilding is carried on.
We have had representations made to the Government constantly about the inequality that was produced in regard to people handling substantially the same thing, because of the mere accident whether or not the ship could come alongside the yard. It was the test of a registered shipbuilding yard that you should be able to bring your boat alongside the actual yard and that it could either be built on, in, or attached to the actual shipbuilding yard. On some rivers, the Tyne for instance, there are a number of deep water wharves where you can bring a vessel alongside, but on the Clyde, curiously enough, for the greater part the marine engine works are not possessed of quays actually alongside the river and consequently you cannot bring your ship alongside the marine engine works on the Clyde. If there is a centre where marine engine works have secured very great prominence it is on the Clyde, yet many of the great firms of marine engine builders have been unable to secure the consignment of goods duty-free under Section 11 to their marine engine works.
Let the Committee understand that there is a new ship being constructed and tenders are put in for the propelling machinery. A foreign firm could send a complete engine unit consigned direct to the shipbuilding yard, and it would come in duty free, but a British marine engineering firm building a competing engine and wishing to tender for the supply of the propelling machinery for that ship and wanting to import certain parts to make up its whole engine was unable to get those parts without paying the duty. This proposal in the Finance Bill is, therefore, nothing more than a
proposal to endeavour as far as possible to overcome an administrative difficulty in the working of Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932. The new Clause endeavours to put right the grievance of the marine engine builder by saying that those parts which the marine engine builder may want to import duty free shall, under the circumstances set out in this Clause, be allowed to come in free. It is not a general enabling power. It is not a reversal of policy. It is an administrative attempt to overcome a difficulty which has been found to exist in the past, and it is thought, with the co-operation of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, to be a way to achieve the desired result.
The hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), half jestingly and half seriously asked whether the six items specified in the Second Schedule, to which this Clause refers were complete, whether they were all necessary and whether they were all the types of articles which the marine engine builder requires. The answer is in the affirmative. This is a Clause drafted in co-operation with the best advice we could procure from those engaged in the industry which it is desired, with common accord, to help, namely, that there shall not be a positive premium on introducing a whole engine complete from abroad into a shipyard as distinct from introducing a part by a British marine engine maker to be built into an engine here. The Clause is designed to secure that, and it is not an attempt at the general extension which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) is seeking to give to it, by suggesting that once the Import Duties Advisory Committee have made a report anything in an engine can be allowed to come in free. That is a much wider proposal than the Government have in mind. In the first place, you have a registered shipyard which includes a marine engine works within the yard itself, and this Clause is to level up the case of those marine engine builders whose premises are not geographically within a registered shipyard. That is the Clause to which the Government adhere.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: While thanking the hon. Member for his explanation, I might say that what we were afraid of
was that this proposal was a limitation of the scope of Section 11 and not an extension of it. We do not mind how much it is extended but we are afraid that there is some limitation here. Under Section 11 the powers were permissive. The Import Duties Advisory Committee could impose certain conditions. I do not, say that I do not accept the explanation of the Minister, but when the Import Duties Act was being discussed in the House there was an outcry against the importation of certain materials for shipbuilding. Will the hon. Member say that there is no question of limiting the purpose intended by Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, that the items in the Second Schedule include everything necessary for the building of ships and that they shall be free from duty? If he would give me that assurance, I shall be much obliged.

8.43 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I can give the hon. Member an immediate assurance that the whole object of the Clause is to extend and not to limit the operation of Section 11. Let me again put the position to the Committee. So long as you have premises which are a registered shipyard anything consigned to them for incorporation in the ship is duty free, under Section 11. It is only in a comparatively small number of cases that the marine engine building works are actually within the registered shipyard, so that Section 11 does not apply at present to the great majority of marine engine builders' works. It is not possible to register all marine engine works as shipyards, because in addition to making marine engines they often make other things. You could not have, little works all over the country in a great number of inland places being registered as shipyards. For example, the British Thomson-Houston Company, of Rugby, supply a great deal of material used in ships, but it could not be registered as a shipyard. It would be something ironical, when Great Britain is an island, that we should have registered shipyards in inland places. We could not do that, but we can go to the marine engine builders and say: "Make a list of the things you rightly want to import." We are only dealing with things which they cannot get here, which they must import from abroad in order to put them into their engines, which are subsequently to be put inside the ship.
We say: "What are you likely to import which would be under a duty unless we give you special exemption." This list of articles required for shipbuilding purposes has been made up with the co-operation of the interests concerned, and while one can never hope to please everybody with any formula, you can be tolerably sure, when you have investigated a matter in the way this has been investigated, that the ground is substantially covered. The Clause is designed to remove an anomaly which it has been impossible to explain—namely, why shipbuilding yards in certain cases are registered shipbuilding yards and others making marine engines elsewhere because they are not registered do not come under the provisions of Section 11. The grievance will be met and the importation of the specified parts will be free of duty if they are for marine engines.

8.46 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We have had a most remarkable statement from the Parliamentary Secretary and an illustration as to the extraordinary difficulties of administering the import Duties Act and the injuiry which is being done to the shipbuilding trade. The hon. Member has admitted that the Clyde area, one of the worst hit areas in the country, has been seriously hampered by the difficulty of importing essential articles in the construction and repair of boilers and propelling machinery. We are asking that the principle in Section (11) of the original Act should apply in this case. It would be more reasonable, in the case of goods imported for the manufacture of boilers and propelling machinery of ships, that where the Commissioners are satisfied that these goods should be exempt, the exemption should not be limited to a few articles. That is not an unreasonable request. If they are able to satisfy the conditions that the goods are really required for the purpose. I suggest that they should without exception be exempt. I hope the Government will be able to grant this small concession. We are supposed to be discussing a Finance Bill, but so far we have had no intervention by the Financial Secretary. A few well chosen words would be welcome. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, except in the case of insulin, has been sitting in sphinx-like silence. We
are really discussing a Tariff Bill, finance has been pushed into the background. We are debating how we can placate this industry and that by a concession here and there, or by a lowering of the duty.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Clause under discussion.

Sir P. HARRIS: That is all I want to say. It would be a justification of his distinguished occupation and responsibility of guiding a Finance Bill through the Committee if the Financial Secretary could make some concession to this distressed industry, which is crying out for help, and which has been suffering from a clumsy wording of the Governments' own Act.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I confess that the last observations of the Parliamentary Secretary have come as a revelation to me. It may be that I am disclosing a colossal ignorance, but I acknowledge that I do not know much about shipbuilding. At the same time, I have always understood that the steel trades of this country claim that they are efficient and up to date, and able to meet the needs of the country, but I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that there are certain types of work, sections of completed articles, which they are not able to provide.

Dr. BURGIN: Not necessarily steel.

Mr. JONES: The materials are referred to in the Second Schedule. The question which strikes me is this. Now that we are about to have tariffs imposed are we still to be in the position of having to admit that our steel trade will yet be so inefficient as to be unable to provide essential parts in the building of a ship? The whole argument has been, protect us from unfair competition from outside and we will show you how competent we are. Yet, here we are, in spite of the fact that we are to consider measures for protecting this industry, being told in advance that whatever we may do in that direction there must be free trade in regard to certain specified products of the steel and allied trades. I did not expect to hear so bland and open a confession that this wonderful country of ours, which is so advanced in the matter of
steel products, has still to admit that other parts of the world are more advanced in respect of certain articles.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I listened with great interest to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the position of registered shipyards. I have very little knowledge of the shipbuilding industry but I should like to know whether it is the fact that within this tariff-ridden country of ours there are little areas which are a kind of free trade state, and that these free trade states are registered shipyards. May I ask whether it is true that registered shipyards within the meaning of the Act enjoy a kind of extra territorial right to import free of duty any kind of goods which are required in the construction of ships?

Dr. BURGIN: The Section speaks for itself. Section (11) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, permits materials which are imported into registered shipyards for the purpose of shipbuilding to be imported free of duty. The whole point is that administratively the control by the Customs is by consignment direct to a yard which has produced a certificate of registration. In other words, it is to premises.

Mr. WILMOT: I am obliged for the explanation, but it is a surprise to me, and I have no doubt to other hon. Members, to learn that any kind of material required in the building of ships may be imported into a registered shipbuilding yard free of duty. In these circumstances it seems rather remarkable that the Second Schedule to which this Clause refers should be such a short one. One would have expected that ash trays and smoking room curtain materials, oak planks and sail cloth, would have been among the materials used in the construction of ships, and that the special extra territorial privilege which attaches to a registered shipbuilding yard would have been extended to the unfortunate people who are manufacturing these other materials used in shipbuilding but whose works or factories happen to be situated at some place geographically remote from a registered shipbuilding yard.
It would seem that if this Clause is to become law the Government will be faced with a new procession of importunate claimants up another set of backstairs,
and these will be persons claiming to be manufacturers of materials used in the legitimate building of ships, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage as regards the foreigner, because the foreigner can bring his material and dump it straight into a Free Trade, specially privileged, registered shipbuilding yard, while they are endeavouring to manufacture their material in some place where these special privileges do not apply. I would draw attention to the extraordinary sets of circumstances that are growing up as a result of our experience of tariff conditions. It seems very extraordinary that, having imposed a tariff ostensibly for the reason that the industry established in this country is capable of producing all that is required and at a price which is fair to the consumer, it is then necessary to issue wholesale licences in all sorts of directions to get behind those very provisions.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: Really the last speaker is getting so wide of the mark that as one who knows a little about engine building I would like to bring him back to the Amendment. The provision in the Bill refers only to engine works not within the shipyard. This is a right and proper action to take to correct something that had not been foreseen. An engine works which is going to supply engines to a ship and does not happen to be within the shipyard is to be on all fours with the engine works that is within the shipyard. Why the hon. Member should put all that long string of words together about something which was really introduced to help his own people in the early stage of the steel industry, I cannot think. I hope that the simple explanation which I understand was previously given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be a little clearer even than what I have said.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: I want to ask a question of some importance before we leave this matter. I understand that the purpose of the Government is to extend to those industries that supply engines to ships the privilege of free admission which is already given to shipyards which are engaged in the construction of ships. There are defined in the second Schedule to the Bill those articles which are to be admitted free, no matter to which part
of the country they go. The purpose of the Amendment is to assist the Government to obtain what they desire, which is that the construction of ships in our yards shall not be enhanced in cost by the imposition of a tariff upon any article which is essential to the building. The case which I have in mind is that of insulation. The people who are engaged in the work of insulation of pipes and other things upon ships, I understand, have to import certain portions of the material used in the process of manufacture, and at the present time they have to pay a duty, and yet when they are engaged on the insulation of a ship that duty is in their costs. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether this particular case has been thought about by the Government, and if so why it is not included in the Schedule.
Indeed, the more we think of this matter, once it is admitted that in order to keep our place in the shipping industry of the world we must have a free market in which to purchase materials—once that is admitted by the Government, there is no halting place between this and Free Trade in the building of ships. The purpose of the Amendment if to extend what the last speaker seemed to desire, namely, that the anomaly should be done away with and that things required in the construction of ships, not the accessories in. the furnishing of ships, must be allowed into this country free. The Government admit that, and for appearance sake they seem to endeavour to indicate that the whole of these articles can be included in any Schedule. I submit that they cannot be, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say specifically whether the case of insulation material has been considered, and whether he cannot extend the Schedule to include such material.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I have listened to all the discussion, but I was not able to understand the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) caused me to rise because he corrected my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), and said that what was meant by this Clause was to allow engine works to supply these materials. Having looked at the Schedule I do not see that the
hon. Member for Platting had made the matter clearer. I can, perhaps, understand some of the items mentioned, but I cannot understand No. 3. It allows to come in, duty free, iron and steel plates not less than one-eighth of an inch nor more than two inches in thickness. I cannot imagine any engine works supplying those.

Mr. CHORLTON: For the boilers.

Mr. BATEY: This is far wider than the boilers. These are iron and steel plates used in the shipyards, which means any iron and steel plate used in the building of the ships, that are allowed in duty free. Nor was the matter made clear by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that the proposal was to bring in marine engine works that are not within a registered shipyard. It seems to me that No. 3 ought not to have been included here. It is simply used to bring in marine engine works. There have been more than 12 months' experience of the working of these exemptions. It certainly does not seem to have helped the shipbuilding industry very much. On the Tyne shipbuilding has not revived or become prosperous because of these exemptions. After all, is the exemption of these articles worth while?

9.5 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: In reply to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) the experience of the operation of Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, has been this—that goods required for the building, repairing or refitting of ships have been imported into registered shipyards for the express purpose of avoiding duty. Those builders who happen to have engine-works within their registered shipbuilding yards, have imported their engines, sometimes complete, from abroad because, by so doing, they have avoided paying duty on the whole or any part. Of course no exemption can overcome depression in trade. The hon. Member expressed astonishment that the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne had not yet revived as fully as it might have. This section has made greater the possibility of British shipbuilding yards competing with abroad, but the experience of the working of the section has been that all these marine engine builders who, for reasons laid down by the
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, were not able to procure registration under Section 11 have felt an acute sense of grievance because they have found themselves in competition with completed foreign engines consigned direct to shipbuilding yards. It is to remedy that state of affairs that this new provision is introduced.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) asked had the Government considered the case of insulating apparatus and its parts. The answer is "yes" and hon. Members will find that this Schedule can, with the approval of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the Treasury, be extended. It is a question of making out a claim. Subsection (2) of Clause 9 provides that the Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and after consultation with the Board of Trade, add to or withdraw from the Schedule—in other words vary the Schedule.

Sir P. HARRIS: Why have the Schedule?

Dr. BURGIN: Because the whole point is to endeavour to deal with the grievance to which I have referred. Having attempted to legislate for shipbuilding in Section 11 of the Act of 1932 and having found the difficulty in practice regarding marine engine works which are not in shipbuilding yards, this is a Clause designed to meet that difficulty. It is a specific Clause to meet a particular difficulty and if it were made general the result would be that it would cease to have the very effect for which it is designed.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: The longer this Debate continues the more interesting it becomes. I do not know that the successive speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary throw further light on the subject, but they certainly provide interesting revelations of a change of attitude on the part of a person who once held views entirely different from those which he now expounds at that Box. In his last statement he has made a very interesting admission. He has laid down the dictum that tariffs are not going to cure depression of trade. That is a very interesting statement coming from the
Government Front Bench. As far as we on these benches are concerned, we duly note that statement and on appropriate occasions and in appropriate places we shall make full use of it.

Mr. CAPQRN: In answer to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) may I point out that the Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything of the kind——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is raising a matter which was not improperly referred to as the reference has been replied to; but it is a matter which I cannot allow to be debated on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217: Noes, 53.

Division No. 265.]
AYES.
[9.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Moss, Captain H. J.


Albery, Irving James
Gledhill, Gilbert
Munro, Patrick


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Nation, Brigadler-Goneral J. J. H.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Apsley, Lord
Greene, William P. C.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Grimston, R. V.
Pearson. William G.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Penny, Sir George


Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hales, Harold K.
Petherick, M.


Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Hanbury, Cecil
Radford, E. A.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rankin, Robert


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ray, Sir William


Bllndell, James
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Borodate, Viscount
Hepworth, Joseph
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Boulton, W. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Remer, John R.


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hornby, Frank
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horobin, Ian M.
Rosbotham. Sir Thomas


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Ronald D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Runge, Noran Cecil


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)


Burnett, John George
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jeeson, Major Thomas E.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salt, Edward W.


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Kimball, Lawrence
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Knight. Holford
Selley, Harry R.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinten
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Law, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Colfox. Major William Philip
Leckle, J. A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)


Conant. R. J. E.
Leech. Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dine, C.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lees-Jones, John
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Cooke, Douglas
Levy, Thomas
Somervell, Sir Donald


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Craven-Ellis, William
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Soper. Richard


Crooke, J. Smedley
Loftus, Plerce C.
Sotheran-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Mabane, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
McKie, John Hamilton
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Dunglass, Lord
McLean, Major Sir Alan.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife. E.)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Elmley, Viscount
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Manningham-Bulter, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Margeseon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Summersby, Charles H.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Martin, Thomas B.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Moniell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thompson, Sir Luke


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morgan, Robert H.
Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingtwinford)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wise, Alfred R.


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeoar.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Train, John
Wells, Sydney Richard



Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Weymouth, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Turton, Robert Hugh
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Captain Austin Hudson and Sir


Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Walter Womersley.


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rothschild, James A. de


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Brown. C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Curry, A. C.
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Grenfell. David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. Walter Rea and Sir Robert


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hamilton.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Provisions as to goods becoming, or ceasing to be, exempt from general ad valorem duty.)

9.20 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 27 to 29.
Sub-section (1) of this Clause deals with certain provisions as to goods becoming, or ceasing to be, exempt from the general ad valorem duty and what in that event shall happen as regards orders imposing additional duties to the ad valorem duty, and it lays down that in those cases the additional duty shall cease to have effect as respects the goods when they cease to be chargeable to the general ad, valorem duty. I understand that that provision is made because the provisions of the original Act are not clear as regards what shall happen in such an event. Then comes the proviso that we wish to omit, which is as follows:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the provisions of proviso (b) to subsection (4) of section one of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932.
I find it a little difficult to find out why it should affect the provisions of the Ottawa Agreements Act and, therefore, what the object of this proviso is. Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, is the Section which gives power to make a charge of Customs duty on
certain specified goods, and Sub-section (4) says:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the duties of customs chargeable on any goods under this section shall be charged in addition to any other duties of customs for the time being chargeable thereon or on any of the components thereof "—
which means that the Ottawa duties would be in addition to the general ad valorem duty and in addition to an additional duty, if there were one. Then comes the proviso, which is under two sub-heads. Paragraph (a) is as follows:
(a) nothing in this subsection shall affect the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section one of the Import Duties Act, 1932 (which exempts from the general ad valorem duty certain goods for the time being chargeable with a duty of customs by or under any enactment other than that "Act) "—
which means to say that you are now dealing with a proviso to a Sub-section which itself is a proviso which is dealing with the Act under which this, as an Amendment, is purporting to deal with a Customs duty. We have now gone round the circle, as it were, twice, and I am not quite certain—perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite will tell me—at what point we have arrived, whether we have got back to where we started or only halfway back. Then you proceed with the second proviso, and this is the one which is not to affect Clause 10, Sub-section (1) of the present Bill, namely:
(b) while any goods are chargeable with duty under this section, any order in force under the Import Duties Act, 1932 "—
that would be an ad valorem duty or an additional duty—
at the date when those goods become so chargeable "—
that is, under the Ottawa Act—
shall, if and so far as it imposes an additional duty on those goods, cease to have effect.
That is to say, as I understand it, that although the Ottawa Agreements Act imposes a duty in addition to any other duty, this says that if there is an additional duty, this shall not be in addition to the additional duty; in other words, that this shall take the place of the additional duty. In these circumstances I fail to understand why this proviso is necessary, because it says nothing shall affect the provisions in proviso B of Sub-section (4). Nothing can conceivably affect the provisions, because all we are dealing with is Clause 10, Sub-section (1). Therefore, it is meaningless to say that a Clause only dealing with an ad valorem duty shall not affect another proviso dealing with other duties altogether. The proviso only serves to cause confusion. This is one of the best bits of legislation by reference. By the time the ordinary trader had studied this Section, I think he would form another problem for the Minister of Health.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The ordinary trader should be more than usually grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for having elucidated that which is somewhat complicated. The Sub-section, as the hon. and learned Member, following it closely, will appreciate, is aimed at securing that any additional duty on goods under the Import Duties Act will cease when those goods become free from the basic duty. The case we have more particularly in mind is when goods are put on the Free List. Goods on the Free List are obviously in a different category from goods subject to Ottawa duties. The proviso referred to says that:
while any goods are chargeable with duty under this Section, any Order in force under the Import Duties Act, 1932, at the date when these goods become so chargeable shall, if and so far as it imposes an additional duty on these goods, cease to have effect.
In other words, there is a plain distinction between goods put on the Free List, with the intention of keeping them on the Free List permanently, and goods
relieved temporarily by virtue of the fact that they come under the Ottawa Agreements Act. If put on the Free List, they shall be permanently free from additional duties; if they come under the Ottawa duties, as in the case of plums, additional duty shall revive as soon as the Ottawa duties lapse.

9.29 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am afraid I do not understand this explanation of Clause 10, Sub-section (1). It does not deal with the Ottawa Agreements at all. Why is it necessary to put in a proviso that it shall not affect the Ottawa Agreements if it does not affect them? Sub-section (4) of Clause 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act is not a charging Sub-section at all. All that it says is that while goods are chargeable under the Ottawa Agreements Act, the additional duty shall not be charged. If it is intended here to preserve some charge made under the Ottawa Agreements Act, surely a proviso in the form of preserving a charge, not an exception, is all that is required. With great respect, surely it cannot be the intention to preserve the proviso and not the charge.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made himself as clear as I have. The first part of the Section deals more particularly with goods on the Free List. Owing to a curious lacuna in the law, goods subject to additional duty put on the Free List are not freed from additional duty without express order, and we desire to remove an obvious omission in the law. Goods subject to the Ottawa duties shall be subject once again to additional duty at the moment the Ottawa duties lapse—that is the whole point of this Section and proviso. I trust that I have made myself plain.

9.31 p.m.

Major MILNER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has made himself plain at all. He will forgive me, but I think he has put the Committee in a complete fog. The hon. Gentleman speaks of so many different things, the ad valorem duties, additional duties, articles on the Free List and yet not on the Free List, duties under the Import Duties Act, lacunae, plums and half-a-dozen other things. As I understand the position, Subsection (1) of Clause 10 merely says, when ad valorem duty falls
additional duties will similarly fall. What possible relation has the proviso to proviso (6), sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932? That proviso, as I understand it, says that when the Ottawa duties come into force, then existing duties under the Import Duties Act shall cease to have effect. What relation has a provision affecting an additional duty with an ad valorem duty, to the fact that when the Ottawa Agreements Act comes into effect imports duty shall have no effect? That is where the lacuna is. There is no relation between the two provisos. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to make the matter more clear, if that be possible.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am only too ready to respond to the Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner). When goods subject both to an ad valorem and additional duty are put on the Free List, they still remain owing to some omission in the law, liable to additional duty. That is an obvious mistake in the original Act, and it is that which we desire to rectify, providing at the same time that the change in the law shall not affect the Ottawa position. If goods liable both to ad valorem and additional duty come for a time under the Ottawa Agreements Act, the mere fact that they come under it shall not prevent the ad valorem and additional duty from reviving when the Ottawa Agreements Act ceases to apply. I trust that is perfectly clear.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Power of Committee to obtain information and disclosure of information.)

9.35 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: I beg to move in page 8, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (1).
I am moving this Amendment merely in order to ask for information. I understand that under Section 2 (7) of the Import Duties Act the Advisory Committee have the power of summoning witnesses in order to obtain the necessary information for their proceedings. Apparently under this Clause that power ceases to apply to Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932. That Section means that when it becomes a question of the
import of foreign machinery into this country, if the committee are satisfied that there is no machinery here to compete with it, and that the same machinery is not procurable in this country, they have the power of admitting foreign machinery free of duty. Under this Clause the committee will not have the power to summon witnesses or to obtain information in respect to this matter as they have under other provisions, and we want to know why in this case of the importation of foreign machinery, or in the case of the committee wishing to change their mind later on, they are not allowed to ask for witnesses and get evidence on which they can make their judgment. I do not suspect any sinister design behind this proposal. Behind the candid countenance and the innocent exterior of the Financial Secretary I am sure there lurks no guile. I do not suspect any evil design behind it, because the Financial Secretary is possibly the one member of the Government, with the exception perhaps of his immediate leader, the Foreign Secretary, who has the title of holy innocent, and I hope he will escape the massacre in the coming reconstruction. I would ask him to explain the truth of this matter with his accustomed clarity and all the sad lucidity of his soul.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: The only purpose of moving this Amendment is to get some information along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. It appears to us that there is no reason, on the face of it, why the power to get information should not be extended to Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932, which is rather an important one. It deals with the importation of machinery and gives power for a duty to be put on if it should appear necessary; and there seems to be no reason why information which is required for the purposes of the Advisory Committee should be excepted so far as this particular Section is concerned. The answer may be that it may be necessary to act quickly in the case of certain machinery to be imported, but I want to suggest to the Financial Secretary that in the importation of foreign machinery with, very often, foreign workmen to work it, it is necessary that full information shall be given. Obviously there may be a good deal of unrest, and in certain trades a good deal of suspicion aroused
by the importation of foreign machinery accompanied by foreign workmen, the whys and wherefores of which do not seem to have been explained either in this House or to the public as a whole. Consequently we feel that we ore entitled to some explanation why this particular exception should be embodied in the Finance Bill.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) have asked me to explain with particularity the meaning of this Clause, and at their invitation I gladly respond. Sub-section (7) of Section 2 of the Import Duties Act, the Section referred to in this Clause, empowers the Import Duties Advisory Committee to obtain information so far as they consider it necessary or desirable for the purpose of a proper discharge of their functions. We extend that power to cover subsequent enactments which have not vested them with a similar power. Since the Import Duties Act was passed many Acts have vested in the Import Duties Advisory Committee certain functions, and it is in connection with the discharge of those functions that we desire to extend to the committee powers similar to those that we gave to them under the Import Duties Act. I will give the enactments in question in full, because the hon. Gentlemen who spoke asked me for them. They are Section 11 of the Ottawa Agreement Act, 1932; Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1932, concerning the removal of goods from the Free List; Section 9 of the same Act, concerning drawbacks; Section 10 of the same Act, concerning the exemption from duty of consignments of machinery, which appears specifically exempted because the onus is obviously on the applicants to prove their case, and they will voluntarily give such information as they desire; Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1933, relating to the varying of the Silk Duties; Section 16 of the same Act, relating to the substitution of a specific duty for a general ad valorem duty; and Sections 18 and 19 of the Finance Act, 1933, relating to the treatment for duty purposes of goods imported after having been subject to a process abroad. The. hon. Gentlemen who have put forward this Amendment will see that the purpose of the Sub-section which they desire to remove
is clearly to extend to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in regard to other enactments the same powers as they already possess in regard to their own Act.

9.45 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman has carefully avoided answering the only question which was asked, namely, why are the Committee not allowed the powers under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932? The hon. Gentleman says that in such a case people will voluntarily give information. So they will if they want a drawback. Anybody who wants anything will voluntarily give information, to a limited extent, so much as he thinks will suit his case; but the object of this Section in the Import Duties Act was to enable the Advisory Committee to see that they got all the information, and not merely the information which the applicant thought fit to put before them. If that applies as regards the imposition of duties or the giving of drawbacks, or anything else, why on earth does it not apply as regards the import of machinery free of duty into the United Kingdom? The words in Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932, say:
If, in any case where it is proposed to import into the United Kingdom any consignment of machinery…the Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied that machinery similar to that consignment is not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom.
That is something about which they cannot satisfy themselves by asking the applicant; they must ask the manufacturers; but they have no power to get the information, because it is expressly excluded under this Sub-section. The Section then goes on:
having regard to all the circumstances it is expedient that the consignment should be allowed to be imported.
That has nothing to do with the applicant; that concerns the trade of the country, the manufacturers, the national interest and all the rest of it. Those are not matters on which the applicant can supply them with information, if he wants to do so; but for some reason or other, in this one item, they are being precluded from getting any information from anybody else at all. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman looks into it he will agree that there must be some oversight or mistake, because this is making it impossible for the Advisory Committee to carry out their duties, and I do ask him to say that
this matter will be considered seriously, with a view to taking out these words at a subsequent stage.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quite see the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. The reason why we do not give to the Import Duties Advisory Committee the power to require this information in regard to an application for machinery is that in the case of machinery an application is made by an individual, and the individual will naturally provide the committee with all the information in his possession. In regard to any other of the cases, including drawbacks, the case is quite general; it does not concern one individual only, as in the case of machinery, but the whole community of trades. Therefore, we think it unnecessary to provide the Committee with powers to require an individual to give any information that may be desired by the committee. The committee have general powers and not powers concerning an individual in particular. The committee can refuse without much difficulty the application of an individual for the exemption of certain machinery; but where they are concerned with the treatment of traders as a whole we think they ought to have very general powers of inquiry, in the common interest. That, I think, is the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: There is another point which, if I may say so with respect, the hon. Gentleman has missed. It is true that the individual making an application will lay before the committee all the information which he thinks it necessary to give in order to persuade them to grant the application, but they are required to have regard to the surrounding circumstances. In other words, they are not to grant this application unless they are satisfied that certain conditions obtain, that the machinery cannot be obtained, etc. The applicant will make the best case he can in support of his application, but it will be necessary for the committee, who have to weigh this matter judicially, to have regard to circumstances outside the information supplied by the applicant. That, surely, is the whole intention of the Section to which this Sub-section refers, and if they are to do that, they surely require to
have power to do what this Sub-section seeks to except them from doing.

Amendment negatived.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, to leave out from "Committee," to the end of the Clause.
The discussion which has just taken place has familiarised hon. Members with the point with which this Clause deals, that is, the power of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to obtain the disclosure of information. Many of us on these benches have from the first been very suspicious of this committee and the tasks imposed upon it. We do not like an extra-Parliamentary body to be functioning in this way. It is most distasteful in many respects. The latter part of this Clause, as I read it, even makes it possible for the Advisory Committee to withhold information from a Government Department. Surely a Government Department should not be deprived of any information which it thinks necessary. A Government Department ought to be in a position to say what information it requires for any specific purpose, and why should we confer upon this extra-Parliamentary body the power to withhold that information? Will the champions of democratic institutions and democratic freedom tell us why they allow this power to be conferred upon this body?

9.55 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is natural, the views of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) being different from ours, that there should be a cleavage of opinion upon this question. We have empowered the Import Duties Advisory Committee to obtain such information as may be necessary for the discharge of their function, and we say that this information obtained confidentially shall not be disclosed except for purposes of obtaining further information. The hon. Member for Mansfield thinks that it should be disclosed urbi et orbi—to everybody. So I understand the Amendment. The Sub-section says:
it shall be lawful for the committee to disclose to any Government Department or to any person authorised by a Government Department any information obtained by the committee "—
and the words which the hon. Gentleman desires to leave out are—
if and in so far as it appears to the committee to be necessary for the purpose of obtaining further information.
etc. He desires to give the Committee power to communicate this information for other purposes.

Mr. C. BROWN: To a Government Department.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, or to any person authorised. He desires, in other words, to divulge the information for purposes other than the discharge of the functions of the Committee. That is the plain meaning of the Amendment. I agree with him, although I am sorry to say the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Gripps) does not agree with me or with his hon. Friend. We say that the committee shall only divulge this information so far as that is necessary to obtain further information from a Government Department. We treat the information and the facts given to us by a private firm as confidential. Should it be the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to acquire particulars of businesses for purposes of furthering their own policy, we suggest it be incumbent upon them to come frankly to this House and obtain powers for that purpose. Here we are only dealing with the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the functions which they have to discharge. I think it will be accepted by the Committee as a whole that any knowledge obtained by that committee about individual concerns should be regarded as secret and not to be communicated, not only to the public, but to other officials, except for the discharge of their functions. That position should be regarded as sacrosanct.
I quite understand that when hon. Gentlemen opposite come into power they will require to know the secrets of businesses for purposes other than those for which we use the information. When that day comes they should overtly and in a candid manner come before the House of Commons, not with an Amendment to an insignificant Clause of the Finance Bill, but with a principal Measure and disclose to the House exactly what their intentions may be and the manner in which they desire to give them effect. They will pardon us if, proceeding upon a more modest scale, we give discreetly and with restraint powers to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to require
certain information to be used in a discreet and restrained manner.

10.0 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman said, and that is that we should require information of the secrets of businesses for purposes other than that for which they are now used, but we should not require them in order to wangle a little extra profit for vested interests; we should require them for the good of the community. It is very pleasant to realise that the hon. Gentleman feels that the moment is coming nearer and nearer when those things will happen.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: It is a long way off.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That remains to be seen. We can only look at by-elections and judge. As regards the question of our asking for powers, the Financial Secretary need not be afraid; when we want them we will do that. The present question does not concern any powers that we might want to have, for they will have to be far wider to be of any use. The point that is raised here is the serious one of whether the Treasury, in making up their minds and taking responsibility, as they have to do under the Import Duties Act, for bringing Orders before this House for the imposition of taxation should be deprived of the power of investigation into the facts. As matters are at the moment, the Import Duties Advisory Committee can make the most complete and thorough investigation. An Order is made, but the Treasury have to take the responsibility of vouching for that Order.
It was said, at the time when the Import Duties Act was going through the House that the ultimate responsibility for this rests on the Treasury. That is obviously right, but is it right in those circumstances that the Minister should be debarred from satisfying himself on particular points as regards the advisability of bringing an Order before the House? Must he, in other words, accept everything the Import Duties Advisory Committee do at its face value, without having any right to ask them whether on this or that point there is sufficient information to satisfy him that he ought to bring it before the House
of Commons? In a number of cases, probably, he will not want to do so, but there may well be cases where he would be forced to say, "Without that information I will not bring it before the House of Commons." It might be a very serious matter for the people who might otherwise benefit by the Order.
It is ridiculous to say that this is a suggestion that the Government Department which deals with that responsible body should broadcast the information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can be relied upon, as he is in regard to Budget matters, where the most confidential information is disclosed to him and his Department by industry in order to assist him in making his Estimates. It is just the same here. The Government Department responsible, the Treasury, can be trusted to see certain information if they desire to satisfy themselves that an Order ought to be brought before the House of Commons. As the Clause is at the moment, if the Minister desires to be satisfied the Advisory Committee have no power to allow him to satisfy himself on any single point. I suggest that this is making an absolute fetish of confidential information, and that this is a matter where the Advisory Committee should be in a position, if a Government Department considered it necessary to ask for information, to be able to supply it. It would be covered by the Official Secrets Act, as all information of that kind would be covered. Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to say that his Department is so unreliable that everything that goes there leaks out, I do not see that there can be the slightest objection to this information going to his Department as and when his Department require it for the purpose of making up their minds. We are not prepared to allow the Clause to go through in its present form, where a responsibility has been placed upon the Minister and he is put in a position in which he cannot exercise that responsibility in a proper and efficient manner.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I think that before we leave this Amendment the Financial Secretary should make a serious attempt to meet the arguments of the Mover. It is not sufficient for him to prophesy what those on this side will do when they get
into power. I would like him to explain to us the real reason for the Clause. The Import Duties Committee has now been in existence for some time, and this Sub-section seems to suggest that there is some information which they refuse to give. It seeks power to compel the Import Duties Committee to disclose information, and it limits the compulsion by saying that they shall disclose the information in so far as it may be necessary to deal with some other matter. The Financial Secretary talked about broadcasting the information, but the Subsection confines the disclosure of the information to a Government Department. Why should not a Government Department have whatever information it desires?
When the Import Duties Committee was set up, it was given power to obtain information, and it was understood that that information was not to be divulged to anyone; but the steps now taken in this Sub-section seem to prove that the Treasury at least think that there is some information that a Government Department needs. If there is any such information which the Advisory Committee have, and which they have refused to disclose, I think the Amendment to limit the disclosure leaves the Sub-section as it should be, demanding the disclosure of the information for the information of the Department, so that the Department shall be in a position to judge whether an Order should be brought before the House. If the impression one gets is right, that the Import Duties Committee has been refusing to disclose information, one cannot understand how the Treasury have been able to bring before the House the Orders which they have brought before it. If a Department needs information, that information ought to be disclosed by the Committee, in the interests, not only of the Department, but of the House of Commons.

10.10 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am not quite clear yet as to the purpose of this Clause. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) suggests that, if the Clause remains in its present form, it will be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain information from the Import Duties Advisory Committee with regard to the evidence laid before them—information which might be essential to
him in making up his mind whether or not he would make himself responsible for bringing an Order before the House based on the recommendations of the Committee. Is that really so? It seems to me, reading Section 10 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, that it is not so. According to that Section:
No information relating to any individual business, being information which has been obtained by the committee or the Board of Trade by virtue of the provisions of this Act, shall, without the previous consent in writing of the owner for the time being of that business, be published or disclosed except to members of the committee or to a Government Department requiring that information for the purposes of this Act. …
In these circumstances, surely it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for this information before making himself responsible for an Order?

Sir S. CRIPPS: That might have been so if the Clause were left as amended, but, if it is left as it is, the right to disclose to a Government Department is clearly limited, as I see it, to those matters which are dealt with here, that is to say, only if and in so far as it appears to the committee to be necessary.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is the point that I have tried to make—it is a difficult legal point—namely, whether the effect of these words is to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the power which he has hitherto had of demanding from the Import Duties Advisory Committee sufficient information to justify him in bringing an Order before the House, or whether the words of the Clause are to be read in relation to the words of the principal Act and whether, in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the power to ask for full information from the Advisory Committee.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who

has accurately stated the position. All that the Clause says is that:
Notwithstanding anything in the said Section ten, it shall be lawful for the committee to disclose to any Government Department or to any person authorised by a Government Department any information obtained by the committee if and in so far as it appears to the committee to be necessary for the purpose of obtaining further information.…

Sir S. CRIPPS: That limits the former power.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does it limit the former power?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly not; it only enables them to disclose information to officials.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: Will not the words
if and in so far as it appears to the Committee to be necessary 
give the discretion to the committee? If so, that will deprive the Chancellor of his former power. If not, why are the words put into the Bill? We are giving the committee a discretionary power which they have not under the original Act.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No powers are taken away; the powers are extended, in the sense that they may disclose to officials for the purpose specified, whereas previously they could not do so.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. J. WILMOT: If that be the case, what is the object of Sub-section (3)? If it neither limits the power——

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It extends it.

Mr. WILMOT: If it extends it, in what manner does it extend the power that already exists?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 35.

CLAUSE 14 (Amendment of 13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 14, s. 13 (4)), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Provision for preventing smuggling in Northern Ireland.)

10.30 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The powers given by this Sub-section are so extraordinary that it seems almost impossible for the Committee to approve of them. The Clause deals with the prevention of smuggling in Northern Ireland, I suppose it would be applicable to smuggling in any area because smuggling is obviously a thing one wants to prevent. But even the smuggler is entitled to a
sort of elementary justice. Under Subsection (2) the procedure is this:
If goods of any such class or description as aforesaid are found in the possession or control of any person within the prescribed area in Northern Ireland, an officer of customs and excise may require that person to furnish proof that the goods have not been imported from the Irish Free State.
It is always difficult to prove a negative, but to start proceedings which may become criminal proceedings by having to satisfy someone that you are not guilty has always been considered not a right thing according to the principles of English justice.
or that customs duty has been paid thereon, and if such proof is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, the goods shall be deemed, for the purpose of any proceedings for the forfeiture of them or for any customs penalty in respect of them, to have been imported as aforesaid without payment of duty, unless the contrary is proved.
That is to say, there will be no need for the prosecution to produce any evidence except for the customs officer to say, "I required this man to furnish me with proof that they have not been smuggled and he did not, therefore, he is guilty unless he proves the contrary." That is not the procedure which has been generally meted out in this country even to the worst type of smuggler, and it is not desirable to introduce procedure of this kind, however bitterly we may desire to prevent importation by smuggling from the Irish Free State to Northern Ireland. I suggest that it is more important to preserve the elements of justice than to stop the importation of cattle over the Irish Free State border, and that it will be better to omit the Clause altogether and substitute for it some more rational and more just type of procedure, as stringent as you like, but a procedure which at least preserves the elementary right of the subject to be proved guilty and not assumed to be guilty unless he proves that he is not guilty.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Subsection is the vital part of the Clause, which puts upon the person found in possession of goods believed to have been smuggled the onus of proving that they have not been smuggled. The hon. and learned Member has avowed that he is as anxious as we are to prevent
smuggling and he will appreciate the peculiar conditions which prevail on the border separating Northern Ireland from Southern Ireland. The boundary is 200 miles long, and in some cases actual farms are divided by the boundary. The Customs officials are well acquainted with the head of cattle possessed by farmers upon the northern boundaries, but when they go to Mr. Murphy and say "Last night you had one cow and this morning you have ten. How do you account for the difference?" Mr. Murphy will say "Owing to a recent decision of the High Court the onus of proof is upon you." That is the difficulty we desire to remove. Since 1876 the onus of proof has been upon the defendant. The Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 reads:
If in any prosecution in respect of any goods seized for non-payment of duties, or any other cause of forfeiture, or for recovering any penalty or penalties under the Customs Acts, any dispute shall arise whether the duties of Customs have been paid in respect of such goods, or whether the same have been lawfully imported or lawfully unshipped, or concerning the place from whence such goods were brought, then and in every such case the proof thereof shall be on the defendant in such prosecution.
That has been the law since 1876. Owing, however, to a decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland, the provisions of that Act as we have hitherto interpreted them have been contested. It is obviously unjust, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who disapproves of smuggling will agree not to allow any doubt to exist on the matter. We, therefore, place categorically once again the onus of proof where it has always existed, namely, upon the defendant, to show how he obtained possession of the cattle or other goods suspected of being smuggled. There is no novel proposal here. It is a mere re-assertion of the law as we have always deemed it to exist, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the whole Committee, appreciative of the peculiar conditions existing in Northern Ireland and the attitude existing between Northern and Southern Ireland towards smuggling, will give us that support which we are entitled to expect.

10.38 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We have certainly had a very interesting statement from the Financial Secretary, and I quite appreciate that the Government are faced with
a very difficult problem. Irishmen in particular are ingenious. You have these two parts of Ireland geographically and artificially divided, and obviously it is difficult to avoid the evasion of duties; but I do think that it is a tall order to put on a citizen the responsibility of proving how he came into possession of particular cattle or any other dutiable goods. It is like the Bill against sedition. Under that Bill a person has to show why he has a particular document in his possession. The same principle is to be applied here to the possession of cattle in Northern Ireland. The Financial Secretary quoted an old Act, but he quite forgets that the whole problem is widened by the policy of the Government. In those old days, when a Bill became an Act of Parliament, we were a Free Trade country. [Laughter I know it is a laughing matter to hon. Gentlemen behind me. In the case of such things as alcohol and tobacco it was reasonable to ask the owners to explain how they came to possess them.
Now that we have all the ramifications of a full-blooded tariff with a tariff war going on between this country and the Irish Free State and with new problems arising, the Government ought to use a less clumsy land unjustifiable instrument than this. I realise their problems and embarrassments and the difficulty of enforcing the law. I suppose it would be regarded as offensive if I suggested that the real way out of the difficulty is to make peace with Southern Ireland and stop this friction which is admittedly causing bad blood—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] It would be out of order for me to go into that question now, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a bad precedent and a bad principle and I suggest that the Government ought to find a less clumsy weapon for dealing with a difficult problem.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It seems to me that we ought to have a more adequate explanation of this proposal. Whatever may have been the law hitherto, this proposal indicates a new departure in one sense. If an individual buys some commodity in France and brings it here in his travelling case and his travelling case is examined at Dover, it is a simple matter to show that the material or object or whatever it may be has come from a
foreign country. But once it is taken through the Customs and into that person's home it becomes difficult to show that the article has been smuggled. In a case such as that visualised by the hon. Gentleman the problem is more difficult. Suppose there is a farm on the border between Ulster and the Irish Free State, one-half being in Ulster and the other half in the Irish Free State, the difficulty becomes greater still and, the greater the difficulty, the greater the danger of invading a man's private rights and liberties.
The House ought to be extremely careful before doing anything which would interfere with individual rights and freedom. No one wants to stimulate or encourage smuggling, but even though a person be a smuggler, he is entitled to certain fundamental legal rights and I do not think that the Government by citing an old Act of Parliament, which in other respects may be quite clear and defensible, is meeting the case in relation to the problems which may arise along the Ulster border. This brings us back to the fundamental question mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) of private rights and private liberty. The Government must not be surprised if we are a little suspicious of this attempt to invade this sphere of the subject's rights—an attempt which is being made simply because political issues are involved as between one part of Ireland and the other, and we happen to be on terms of greater friendliness and amity with one part of Ireland than with the other. I think we ought to have a more adequate defence of this proposal than we have had so far.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. RONALD ROSS: I welcome this devoted adherence to the rights of individualism by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). His devotion to private rights, private liberties, and private freedom is admirable. I have always thought he was a Socialist, but now I see that at heart, when you really get down to the touchstone, he is an individualist and would no doubt abhor all those deplorable Socialist theories which interfere with private rights. Of course, the hon. Baronet who spoke before him, from that well-known agricultural constituency
of Bethnal Green, on the subject of cattle smuggling is not entirely of the same heart as the present Government on the subject of Protection, nor indeed would he appear to be of the same policy entirely as regards Ireland. He suggests two small amendments to our present position, the one that we should become a Free Trade country once again, and the other that we should adopt the immortal Liberal policy of surrender to the Irish. If we only did those two things, we should not have to pass this unfortunate Clause, according to the hon. Baronet's view.
As regards the present position on the 200-mile frontier, it is one of grave difficulty. We are up against a new problem, which has not faced this country for some time, a problem which I think is a necessary one in the present circumstances and one which must be dealt with. It is very hard to cover a frontier of that length without enormous expense. The present situation is a grave disadvantage to all the people on our side of the border, when cattle are run over in considerable numbers, with the result that they glut the markets and drive the prices down to a very low figure. Until this decision, which was given by the High Court of Northern Ireland in accordance with the law, as the learned Judges saw it, and against the interests of the Northern Ireland community, I think, the matter was being handled with fair success, because if you have to catch cattle going across the border—and it is with cattle that the main problem rests—and you have the cattle on the hop, so to speak, it is very difficult.
I can assure hon. Members that those engaged in this work are by no means thoughtless persons. There are no devices to which they have not turned their attention. [An HON. MBMBER: "Ulstermen? "] No, I think the hon. Member will find if he takes the trouble to go to Belfast and secure introductions to the leading cattle smugglers, that they are almost entirely of the other persuasion.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Who are the buyers?

Mr. ROSS: The buyers are mostly Welshmen and Englishmen, and some of them give very poor prices. As to the actual smuggling of cattle, there are certain old white cows that are notorious for
being driven into the police patrol in order to be captured, so that the unfortunate patrol, in taking the animals in question into custody, are unable adequately to observe other portions of the frontier. It may be interesting to hon. Members to know that in the Irish Free State black cattle are of a definitely higher value than those of a lighter colour. There are various other points on which I could enlighten the Committee, but I was always one to abhor any waste of time. Therefore I would conclude shortly by saying that the principle in British law in connection with the Customs service has been for so long, and, in the present instance so necessary, that it should not even be questioned by disinterested members of the intelligence of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and others.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I listened with some amusement to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on the habits of his fellow-countrymen in catching cattle on the hop. I venture to think there is some foundation for the objections to this Clause. The Financial Secretary has tried to justify this Clause by quoting the Act of 1876, and saying that it was perfectly true that this Clause is only meant to re-establish the position as it stood before the late judgment. But if he will delve into history, he will see that the Act of 1876 only took effect after smuggling had ceased to become a profitable industry. The real rigour of the law was only applied in smuggling after it ceased to be practicable. Smuggling ceased to be profitable after the duties were raised. When smuggling was widely carried on, it was under conditions which the hon. Gentleman wishes to re-establish now. I do, in fact, think that directly smuggling, as it is now widely practised on the Irish border, becomes widespread, we ought to think more carefully than before about the status of the law upon it. It did not matter during the period from 1876 until to-day, that the law stood as it did. Now as smuggling on the Irish border has become active, we have occasion, or shall have occasion, for officers of the law and Customs to act on the authority of this Clause. I do not think that my hon. Friend will deny that the Clause as it stands, or stood before the late judgment,
does in fact lay the whole body of persons who may occasionally be engaged in the nefarious practice of smuggling open to action for justice. It is perfectly conceivable that someone engaged in smuggling goods innocently acquired which he smuggled normally may not always be easy to convict. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the bias of the Customs officers will be against those normally engaged in this traffic. (We should all of us prefer that much smuggling could escape unpunished rather than there should be cases in which injustice is done. I heard some hon. Member say "No," but I should be sorry to think that the House of Commons to-day was of the opinion that it would be better by administrative measures to repress what is undoubtedly a crime, at the cost of inflicting occasional injustice rather than allow some criminals to escape.

Mr. KNIGHT: Is it not a familiar principle of criminal law that in certain offences against the State the onus of proof of innocence is put on the accused?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am not prepared to argue with my hon. and learned Friend as to the law about that. He is probably much more familiar than I am with it, but I do not think it vitiates the main argument. The main argument is that you are here re-introducing a principle of law which a court has decided is wrong. You are re-introducing it in circumstances in which it will be frequently applied, and not in circumstances such as existed from 1876 until the present day, in which it was very infrequently applied. I think that the Government ought to take further thought before they deliberately establish a system which went without challenge, it is true, for over 50 years, but only went without challenge because the offence with which it dealt was an unusual and a rare one. If you are going to have on the Irish border between Northern and Southern Ireland a whole series of prosecutions which may or may not be just, but in which the whole of the weight is given to one side, then I submit that you are conniving at something which we and previous Parliaments would not be prepared to do. It has long been, a principle with us that innocence must be assumed until guilt is proved.

This Clause re-establishes a condition of things which would have been often challenged if cases had frequently arisen, but cases until now have not frequently arisen; and, while this condition of things subsists in Ireland, cases will arise, and under this Clause you will give to the Customs authorities an advantage in litigation in any prosecution against those whom they allege, rightly or wrongly, to be smugglers, which I do not think we ought to give. The argument that the law has existed without challenge since 1876 may seem a formidable one. I do not think it is a formidable one when we consider the circumstances. If that is the kind of argument which the Financial Secretary is prepared to use in every case, we might use the argument that freedom of trade existed in this country from 1876 until the present day, but still the hon. Gentleman does not propose to re-establish it. The fact that it had existed during that period is not sufficient argument for him in that case, nor should it be sufficient argument for us that the law as he has quoted it has existed since 1876 until lately. He must find on this occasion some better arguments for this Clause. He must seek to justify it not simply by precedent, and I hope that the Committee will refuse without further inquiry and information to establish a state of things which on the face of it must lead to occasional cases of the greatest injustice.

It is unreasonable to believe that officials armed with this power will not abuse it occasionally. It is for the House of Commons to try and ensure that the bureaucracy of this country and of Northern Ireland shall not be armed with powers which may enable them occasionally to commit an injustice on our fellow citizens. The desire to catch the smuggler easily is one that may well appeal to the Treasury, because all administrators like the opportunity of carrying out their duties with the least possible interference, but that consideration ought not to prevail with a legislative assembly, and certainly not with the British House of Commons. These are tine very things which the Government most hotly resent when they are proposed by the Opposition. These are the interferences with liberty which they always impute to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol
(Sir S. Cripps). They resented it when, on a previous Clause, he proposed that information should always be made available to the Government by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. When the Opposition, as frequently—and quite logically, from their point of view—they do, propose an increase in the powers of the executive hon. Members opposite resent it.

Here the Government are proposing to give fresh powers—old powers it is true, but fresh under this legislation—to the executive, but I earnestly hope they will reflect again before they do so. Let them remember an occasion on which they proposed to give powers to an executive committee which we had opposed. On that occasion they got the Labour Opposition into the Lobby with them. They have not to-night; but that occasion was a fair measure of the view which Socialism takes of increases of power by the executive when they are proposed by Conservatives. I hope the Government will seriously bear these criticisms in mind before putting into the hands of the executive a power which may very well be frequently and most disastrously abused.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I have one question to ask with regard to Sub-section (2). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Some hon. Members would be well advised to read what we are discussing before making so much noise about it. I have sat here since a quarter to three, with the exception of one half-hour. In Sub-section (2) I find the words "within the prescribed area" and Sub-section (3) defines them, but not very clearly. It says:
The expression 'prescribed area' means such an area adjoining the land boundary of Northern Ireland as may be prescribed by regulations made by the commissioners under Section four of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1932.
The Financial Secretary told us that this was to apply to the area presumably contiguous to the boundary, but it seems to me the commissioners have power to define any area which they wish to define, and I would like to know what are the powers of the commissioners under Subsection (3). I think we are all agreed that smuggling, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, is not a thing to be admired. Everybody is expected to obey the law and I would not for a
moment put up any defence for smuggling. But the last speaker referred to the executive use of certain powers, and here we are going a little step further. The executive delegates its powers to a commission. I should like to know exactly what are the boundaries that can be drawn to the commission, under Sub-section (3) and which are referred to in Sub-section (2).

11.5 p.m.

Sir R. HAMILTON: A very interesting point has just been put as to what is a "prescribed area." In connection with that, I want a little more information. The effect of this Clause will be limited to the prescribed area. In that event, Northern Ireland, outside the prescribed area, the law will be such as has been laid down by a recent judgment. There will be two different laws in Northern Ireland, one under the judgment of the High Court there, and the other as the effect of this Clause. If I am wrong in that, I shall be glad to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman who replies might let us know exactly.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: The information in this case is associated by the Committee rather too directly with the process of the particular case with which it is proposed to deal, and is not regarded in its wider aspects. Nobody seeks to defend or to embarrass the Government in dealing with smuggling, but, when the Financial Secretary only defence for this considerable addition to the powers of the executive is that the law is simply being put as it was understood to be, his argument seems exceedingly fallacious. It is suggested that we should not have regard to the particular difficulties of the case so much as to the conditions of the time in which we are legislating. The tendency of the world to-day is to undermine the liberty of the individual in every country and to invest in various executives tremendous and increasing powers. For this Parliament, which is supposed to be the mother of Parliaments and above all Parliaments is said to promote and to protect the liberties of individual subjects, to do this thing at this time is something which we shall live to regret.
Not very long ago, Government supporters were talking about liberty, when we discussed a Private Member's Motion to repress the use of political uniforms.
It was a question of individual liberty, and of the powers of the executive in keeping order. Depend upon it, if we pass this Bill to-night in this form, it will not rest here. When precedents are searched for in the future for the suppression of liberty, all the circumstances of the time in this case will not be brought to light, but we shall be told that the National Government in 1934 sought to put this on the Statute Book. The whole case for the rights of the subject and the equality of citizens before the law will be gone. The particular citizen may be a disreputable person; if so, all the more will the case be weighted against him and it will be impossible for him to prove his innocence. We are doing something which will have repercussions far beyond what we expect. The effect of the suppression of smuggling on the boundary of Northern Ireland will pale into insignificance against the tremendous consequences which will follow the creation of this precedent. I merely content myself with entering the strongest possible protest against this action of the Government.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I should like to point out that there is an exact parallel to this Clause in the Excise laws which have obtained in this country for many years. In every distillery the distiller has to prove to the Excise officer that duty has been paid on the spirits in his possession. That is an exact parallel to the situation dealt with in the Clause.

11.12 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely we are going to have a reply from the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] A request has been made for very important information on this subject. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) has dealt with a case which has no kind of relevance to the one which we are discussing. There you have firms engaged from day to day in the business of a great industry, and of course, as a matter of business, they have all the necessary Customs receipts and receipts for the things which they have bought. But we are not dealing here with that kind of thing; we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of ordinary individuals. There has been some talk about cattle, but they may have any dutiable object
in their personal possession or in their houses, and at any moment they may be called upon by the Customs officers to justify and explain their possession of such articles. They have no Customs receipts; they are just ordinary people, who are not the heads of businesses, with great files of documents and receipts on which they can put their hands at a moment's notice; and it is not reasonable to apply to them the same business standards as are applied to great firms of distillers such as my hon. Friend refers to. We are confronted with a serious situation in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast described the cattle hopping to and fro——

Mr. R. ROSS: The right bon. Gentleman has mistaken my constituency. I should like to put to him this point: is it not easier to identify a cow than a bottle of whisky?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: How much easier, then, would it be for the Customs officers to prove their case? But I gather from the hon. Member that there may be some difficulty with his Irish cows, which he has described as hopping about the frontier from one side to another. He referred rather scathingly to the agricultural knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris); but, with my limited agricultural knowledge in Scotland, I have never seen these hopping cows. There are, however, great difficulties in dealing with smuggling. The Customs officers go from place to place, dashing after white cows when they should be pursuing black ones, and it is natural in such circumstances that they should be a little wrought up; and, when ordinary citizens are subjected to the interference of officials who are wrought up, and are suddenly called upon to justify and explain how they came into possession of certain articles, I think they will be very sorry if we have allowed, without the strongest protest, a Measure of this kind to go through. I have objected consistently in the House to any party introducing Measures of this kind to strengthen the Executive at the expense of the liberties of the private citizen, and I hope that the Financial Secretary
will give us one word of explanation in reply to the various points which have been made by hon. Members above the Gangway and on these benches, particularly the point about one law in one area and another law in another. The ordinary citizen is not only going to have the difficulties that I have described but he will have to send for a map on which these areas are demarcated. He will not know, unless the Financial Secretary can explain that my hon. Friend was mistaken in his assumption, in what area he resides. I think the Committee will be more comfortable if the Financial Secretary cane give some explanation.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. HO RE-BELISHA: The hon. Member asked me what was the prescribed area. The prescribed area under the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act is that area which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe for the purposes of this Clause.

Sir P. HARRIS: Another point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton). If you are outside the prescribed area, what law are you subject to? Are you subject to a decision of the High Court or subject to this new Clause?

Sir R. HAMILTON: I put the question in all sincerity, and I think the Committee ought to be informed exactly where we stand. Are there two laws if we pass this Clause with regard to smuggling?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but it is quite plain.
If goods of any such class or description as aforesaid are found in the possession of any person within the prescribed area.
Therefore the provision of course only applies for the prescribed area.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I take it that I am right in presuming that there are two different laws.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 45.

Division No. 266.]
AYES.
[10.15 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Belt, Sir Alfred L.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bernays, Robert


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blindell, James


Agnew. Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Borodale, Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Balniel, Lord
Boulton, W. W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Applin. Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, M. W, (Bucks. Aylesbury)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Atholl, Duchess of
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Borks., Newb'y)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Horobin, Ian M.
Rosbotnam, Sir Thomas


Burnett, John George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Ronald D.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B
Rothschild, James A. de


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Runge, Norah Cecil


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'I)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofrlc
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salt, Edward W.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Coltox, Major William Philip
Kimball, Lawrence
Selley, Harry R.


Conant, R. J. E.
Knight, Holford
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cook, Thomas A.
Knox. Sir Alfred
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cooke, Douglas
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Law, Sir Alfred
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Craven-Ellis, William
Leckle, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lees-Jones, John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dine, C.)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Curry, A. C.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Dickie, John P.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Mabane. William
Soper, Richard


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dunglass, Lord
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Spens, William Patrick


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McKie, John Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stevenson, James


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sugden, Sir Willrid Hart


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Summersby, Charles H.


Fleming Edward Lascelles
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Martin, Thomas B.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Gledhill, Gilbert
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Munro, Patrick
Train, John


Gower, Sir Robert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander P. L.


Greene, William P. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Grimston. R. V.
Patrick. Colin M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, Captain Osbert
Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pearson, William G.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hales, Harold K.
Penny, Sir George
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Petherick. M.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pfn, Bllston)
White, Henry Graham


Hanloy, Dennis A.
Pike, Cecil F.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Harbord, Arthur
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Harris, Sir Percy
Radford, E. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hartland, George A.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, T. B. W, (Western Isles)
Wilson. G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rankin, Robert
Wise, Alfred R.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Womersley, Sir Walter James


Hepworth, Joseph
Ray, Sir William
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rea. Walter Russell



Holdsworth, Herbert
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Remer, John R.
Major George Davies and


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cove, William G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Banfield, John William
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Edwards, Charles
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Cape, Thomas
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)




Jenkins, Sir William
Mainwaring, William Henry
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major James
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Wilmot, John


Leonard, William
Thorne, William James



Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


McEntee, Valentine L.
West, F. R.
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 267.]
AYES.
[11.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rankin, Robert


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hales, Harold K.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Albery, Irving James
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Ray, Sir William


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hanbury, Cecil
Remer, John R.


Apsley, Lord
Hanley, Dennis A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atholl, Duchess of
Harbord, Arthur
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ross, Ronald D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ruggles- Brise, Colonel E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Hepworth, Joseph
Runge. Norah Cecil


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hope, Capt. IIon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bateman, A. L.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hornby, Frank
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Salt, Edward W.


Bernays, Robert
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Bllndell, James
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Boulton, W. W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Selley, Harry R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Knight, Holford
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dlne, C.)


Burnett, John George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswelt (Brmly)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Soper, Richard


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Carver, Major William H.
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spencer. Captain Richard A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Spens, William Patrick


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Stevenson, James


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Mabane, William
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)


Clarry, Reginald George
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Strause, Edward A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Colman, N. C. D.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Conant. R. J. E.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cook, Thomas A.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sutcliffe. Harold


Cooke, Douglas
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Craven-Ellis, William
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Crooke, J. Smedley
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Martin, Thomas B.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinlord)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mitcheson, G. O.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Dunglass, Lord
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Munro, Patrick
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeoar


Eimley, Viscount
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wells. Sydney Richard


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Normand. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erskine-Bolst, Capt C. C. (Blk'pool)
Patrick, Colin M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Pearson, William G.
Wilson, G. H. A (Cambridge U.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Penny, Sir George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wise, Alfred R.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Sir Walter James


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Pike, Cecil F.



Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Major George Davies and Dr. Morris


Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Jones.


Greene, William P. C.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, Charles


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Banfield. John William
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gardner, Benjamin Walter


Batey, Joseph
Curry, A. C.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Daggar, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur




Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Lunn, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
McEntee, Valentina L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
West, F. R.


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mainwaring, William Henry
White, Henry Graham


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Mallallsu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Harris, Sir Percy
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wilmot, John


Jankins, Sir William
Milner, Major James



Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rothschild, James A. de
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

CLAUSE 12.—(Restriction of use of certain goods relieved from spirit duty.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.22 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question on Sub-section (4) as to whether the term "compound" includes "chemical compound"? It says:
In this section the expression 'mixture' includes a preparation and a compound.
I understand that the Clause deals with alcohol which is for commercial or other purposes, and that if it is used for medical and scientific purposes, it is not intended to pay a duty. Does "compound" mean a compounded drug or a compound in the sense of a chemical compound?

10.23 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Sub-section (4) really meets two drafting points. Subsection (4) of the Act of 1918 which deals with imported articles speaks of "mixture, compounds or preparations." The phrase is referred to in Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), and the single word "mixture" is accordingly used in those Sub-sections to include all of them.

CLAUSE 13.—(Relief in case of excessive assessment for purpose of excise licence.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.24 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I wonder if a representative of the Treasury will be good enough to give an explanation as to why this provision is inserted in the Bill. If I gather its purpose, it is designed to provide for relief in case of excessive assessment for the purpose of excise licence, and gives an opportunity for the individual concerned to apply,
either in respect of the past year or the current year, or both, for a reduction of the assessment if information justifying it is adduced. I can understand a proposition of that sort, although I may have my own views about it. My difficulty is this: why is a provision of this sort made in this particular Clause for certain taxpayers when other classes of taxpayers have assessments made upon them, based upon the condition of their trade, which they must accept for the year for which the assessment is made? What special cases are there here? I can only assume that it is on the ground that their trade may have deteriorated in some respect and that that may justify a change in the assessment. If that is assumed to be the ground for an inn keeper or hotel keeper having a reduction of assessment, what justifies their being treated exceptionally as compared with drapers, grocers or other people in regard to their local assessment? A Clause of this sort which differentiates in such a manner calls for an adequate explanation, and I should be glad if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would give it.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The purpose of the Clause is a mere matter of machinery. Some retail licensed premises are assessed for licence under Schedule A and some are assessed under a special scheme provided for in the Act mentioned. Where they are assessed under Schedule A the matter can be revised by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but when there is a special assessment there is no provision in the Act for revising the assessment. The Clause seeks to put both classes of assessment on exactly the same basis, namely, that when certain circumstances become disclosed in the course of the year which were not known at the time the assessment was made, there can be redress. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise can rectify the injustice. This is a pure matter of machinery to put both classes of assessment on exactly the same basis.

10.28 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely this is making a special provision with regard to particular premises other than the usual procedure as to appeal under the Section. After the time for appeal has run out the Clause will enable these people to get consideration of their assessment, although an ordinary person is not able to get that. This provision is something which gives preferential treatment for the occupiers or owners of licensed premises. It is limited to the occupiers or owners of licensed premises, who are given rights after they have failed to appeal which other people do not have. That is how I understand it. Therefore, surely it is a preferential position. Other people have to be satisfied with their right of appeal, whereas these people if they fail in their right of appeal have still open to them another means of redress which is not open to others.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand the point of the hon. and learned Member. The fact is that even after the time has elapsed those assessed under Schedule A can obtain redress from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, whereas those specially assessed, as the law now stands, cannot get redress. We are therefore giving to those specially assessed the same rights as are possessed by the others. That is all, and the hon. and learned Gentleman may have that assurance.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (CRUELTY TO DOGS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.